↓ Skip to main content

A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research?
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-1996-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel J. Wenke, Sharon Mickan, Leanne Bisset

Abstract

Team-based approaches to research capacity building (RCB) may be an efficient means to promote allied health research participation and activity. In order to tailor such interventions, a clearer understanding of current patterns of research participation within allied health teams is needed. Different self-report measures exist which evaluate a team's research capacity and participation, as well as associated barriers and motivators. However, it remains unclear how such measures are associated with a team's actual research activity (e.g., journal publications, funding received). In response, this observational study aimed to identify the research activity, self-reported success, and motivations and barriers to undertaking research of eight allied health professional (AHP) teams and to explore whether any relationships exist between the self-reported measures and actual research activity within each team. A total of 95 AHPs from eight teams completed the research capacity and culture survey to evaluate team success, barriers and motivators to undertaking research, and an audit of research activity from January 2013 to August 2014 was undertaken within each team. Kendell's correlation coefficients were used to determine the association between research activity (i.e., number of journal publications, ethically approved projects and funding received) and the self-reported measures. Seven out of eight teams rated their teams as having average success in research and demonstrated some form of research activity including at least two ethically approved projects. Research activity varied between teams, with funding received ranging from $0 to over $100,000, and half the teams not producing any journal publications. Team motivators demonstrated a stronger association with research activity compared to barriers, with the motivator "enhancing team credibility" being significantly associated with funding received. No significant association between self-reported research success and actual research activity was identified. Preliminary findings suggest that self-report measures of research success may not always correspond to actual research activity, and a combination of both these measures may be useful when planning RCB interventions. Variation in activity between teams and organisations should also be considered when tailoring RCB interventions. Reinforcing intrinsically motivating rewards of research may also be useful in promoting research participation for some teams.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 6%
Australia 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Professor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Psychology 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,114,267
of 13,454,118 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#948
of 4,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,565
of 266,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,454,118 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them