↓ Skip to main content

The research capacity and culture of Australian podiatrists

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
The research capacity and culture of Australian podiatrists
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13047-015-0066-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cylie M Williams, Peter A Lazzarini

Abstract

Best practice clinical health care is widely recognised to be founded on evidence based practice. Enhancing evidence based practice via the rapid translation of new evidence into every day clinical practice is fundamental to the success of health care and in turn health care professions. There is little known about the collective research capacity and culture of the podiatry profession across Australia. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the research capacity and culture of the podiatry profession within Australia and determine if there were any differences between podiatrists working in different health sectors and workplaces. All registered podiatrists were eligible to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. The Australian Podiatry Associations disseminated the survey and all podiatrists were encouraged to distribute it to colleagues. The Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was used to collect all research capacity and culture item variables using a 10-point scale (1 = lowest; 10 = highest). Additional demographic, workplace and health sector data variables were also collected. Mann-Whitney-U, Kruskal-Wallis and logistic regression analyses were used to determine any difference between health sectors and workplaces. Word cloud analysis was used for qualitative responses of individual motivators and barriers to research culture. There were 232 fully completed surveys (6% of Australian registered podiatrists). Overall respondents reported low success or skills (Median rating < 4) on the majority of individual success or skill items. Podiatrists working in multi-practitioner workplaces reported higher individual success or skills in the majority of items compared with sole practitioners (p < 0.05). Non-clinical and public health sector podiatrists reported significantly higher post-graduate study enrolment or completion, research activity participation, provisions to undertake research and individual success or skill than those working privately. This study suggests that podiatrists in Australia report similar low levels of research success or skill to those reported in other allied health professions. The workplace setting and health sector seem to play key roles in self reported research success and skills. This is important knowledge for podiatrists and researchers aiming to translate research evidence into clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 25%
Environmental Science 3 13%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,487,895
of 4,929,656 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#260
of 312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,346
of 146,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,929,656 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 146,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.