↓ Skip to main content

Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2014
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 (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 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
Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12911-014-0121-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raluca Barac, Sherry Stein, Beth Bruce, Melanie Barwick

Abstract

BackgroundSignificant resources are invested in the production of research knowledge with the ultimate objective of integrating research evidence into practice. Toolkits are becoming increasingly popular as a knowledge translation (KT) strategy for disseminating health information, to build awareness, inform, and change public and healthcare provider behavior. Toolkits communicate messages aimed at improving health and changing practice to diverse audiences, including healthcare practitioners, patients, community and health organizations, and policy makers. This scoping review explores the use of toolkits in health and healthcare.MethodsUsing Arksey and O¿Malley¿s scoping review framework, health-based toolkits were identified through a search of electronic databases and grey literature for relevant articles and toolkits published between 2004 and 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on toolkit topic, format, target audience, content, evidence underlying toolkit content, and evaluation of the toolkit as a KT strategy.ResultsAmong the 253 sources identified, 139 met initial inclusion criteria and 83 toolkits were included in the final sample. Fewer than half of the sources fully described the toolkit content and about 70% made some mention of the evidence underlying the content. Of 83 toolkits, only 31 (37%) had been evaluated at any level (27 toolkits were evaluated overall relative to their purpose or KT goal, and 4 toolkits evaluated the effectiveness of certain elements contained within them).ConclusionsToolkits used to disseminate health knowledge or support practice change often do not specify the evidence base from which they draw, and their effectiveness as a knowledge translation strategy is rarely assessed. To truly inform health and healthcare, toolkits should include comprehensive descriptions of their content, be explicit regarding content that is evidence-based, and include an evaluation of the their effectiveness as a KT strategy, addressing both clinical and implementation outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 221 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 18%
Student > Master 36 16%
Researcher 35 16%
Other 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 44 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 14%
Social Sciences 30 13%
Psychology 26 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 51 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,163,407
of 20,582,837 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#416
of 1,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,509
of 385,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,582,837 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 385,693 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.