↓ Skip to main content

10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,544)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
209 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sietse Wieringa, Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract

In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines-internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines-rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since. We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term 'mindline(s)' and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May's 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review. In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name ('nominal' view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term's philosophical foundations. The latter took an 'in-practice' view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a 'theoretical and philosophical' view (extending theory) or a 'solution focused' view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities. Theoretical publications on mindlines have continued to challenge the rationalist assumptions of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Conventional EBM assumes a single, knowable reality and seeks to strip away context to generate universal predictive rules. In contrast, mindlines are predicated on a more fluid, embodied and intersubjective view of knowledge; they accommodate context and acknowledge multiple realities. When considering how knowledge spreads, the concept of mindlines requires us to go beyond the constraining notions of 'dissemination' and 'translation' to study tacit knowledge and the interactive human processes by which such knowledge is created, enacted and shared. Solution-focused publications described mindline-promoting initiatives such as relationship-building, collaborative learning and thought leadership. The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM's conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of 'evidence-based' knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 209 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
United States 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 191 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 22%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Master 23 12%
Other 21 11%
Professor 10 5%
Other 45 23%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 37%
Social Sciences 38 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Psychology 12 6%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 34 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 119. 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 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#187,638
of 16,587,222 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#13
of 1,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,169
of 229,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,587,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 229,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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