↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative research networks in health: a pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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 research networks in health: a pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0067-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy Elizabeth Robinson, Nicole Rankin, Anna Janssen, Deborah Mcgregor, Stuart Grieve, Timothy Shaw

Abstract

Collaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia. An advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified. Participants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process. This study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Social Sciences 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Psychology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 17 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,457,160
of 8,317,445 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#351
of 481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,076
of 303,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,317,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 57th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 303,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.