↓ Skip to main content

Characteristics and determinants of knowledge transfer policies at universities and public institutions in medical research—protocol for a systematic review of the qualitative research literature

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Characteristics and determinants of knowledge transfer policies at universities and public institutions in medical research—protocol for a systematic review of the qualitative research literature
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0094-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa Jahn, Olaf Müller, Kayvan Bozorgmehr

Abstract

Universities, public institutions, and the transfer of knowledge to the private sector play a major role in the development of medical technologies. The decisions of universities and public institutions regarding the transfer of knowledge impact the accessibility of the final product, making it easier or more difficult for consumers to access these products. In the case of medical research, these products are pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, or medical procedures. The ethical dimension of access to these potentially lifesaving products is apparent and distinguishes the transfer of medical knowledge from the transfer of knowledge in other areas. While the general field of technology transfer from academic and public to private actors is attracting an increasing amount of scholarly attention, the specifications of knowledge transfer in the medical field are not as well explored. This review seeks to provide a systematic overview and analysis of the qualitative literature on the characteristics and determinants of knowledge transfer in medical research and development. The review systematically searches the literature for qualitative studies that focus on knowledge transfer characteristics and determinants at medical academic and public research institutions. It aims at identifying and analyzing the literature on the content and context of knowledge transfer policies, decision-making processes, and actors at academic and public institutions. The search strategy includes the databases PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, and DiVa. These databases will be searched based on pre-specified search terms. The studies selected for inclusion in the review will be critically assessed for their quality utilizing the Qualitative Research Checklist developed by the Clinical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data extraction and synthesis will be based on the meta-ethnographic approach. This review seeks to further the understanding of the kinds of transfer pathways that exist in medical knowledge transfer as well as what factors lead to the adoption of one pathway over another. The aim is to provide evidence for political and academic actors designing policies for the translation of medical knowledge and public-private cooperation. PROSPERO CRD42015014241 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 10%
Computer Science 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,902
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,327
of 277,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 277,605 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.