↓ Skip to main content

Identifying priorities in knowledge translation from the perspective of trainees: results from an online survey

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Identifying priorities in knowledge translation from the perspective of trainees: results from an online survey
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0282-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine Newman, Dwayne Van Eerd, Byron J. Powell, Robin Urquhart, Evelyn Cornelissen, Vivian Chan, Shalini Lal

Abstract

The need to identify priorities to help shape future directions for research and practice increases as the knowledge translation (KT) field advances. Since many KT trainees are developing their research programs, understanding their concerns and KT research and practice priorities is important to supporting the development and advancement of KT as a field. Our purpose was to identify research and practice priorities in the KT field from the perspectives of KT researcher/practitioner trainees. Survey response rate was 62 % (44/71). Participants were mostly Canadian graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, residents, and learners from various disciplines; the majority was from Ontario (44 %) and Quebec (20 %). Seven percent (5/71) were from other countries including USA, UK, and Switzerland. Seven main KT priority themes were identified: determining the effectiveness of KT strategies, technology use, increased key stakeholder involvement, context, theory, expand ways of inquiry, and sustainability. Overall, the priorities identified by the trainees correspond with KT literature and with KT experts' views. The trainees appeared to push the boundaries of current KT literature with respect to creative use of communication technologies research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Researcher 9 16%
Other 6 11%
Librarian 5 9%
Professor 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Unspecified 6 11%
Psychology 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,234,332
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#354
of 1,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,182
of 233,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 233,964 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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