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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 118 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 32% |
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
#13,101,117
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#935
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,423
of 389,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 389,038 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 53% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.