↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
377 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
Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0322-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. E. Nyström, J. Karltun, C. Keller, B. Andersson Gäre

Abstract

Getting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services. Interviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis. Collaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management. Collaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 377 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 377 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 13%
Student > Master 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 132 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 13%
Social Sciences 41 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 26 7%
Psychology 14 4%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 138 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 14 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,018,470
of 24,410,160 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#85
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,026
of 335,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,410,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 335,517 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.