↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the relationship between synergy and partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion International, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Exploring the relationship between synergy and partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships
Published in
Health Promotion International, February 2011
DOI 10.1093/heapro/dar002
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Jones, M. M. Barry

Abstract

Intersectoral partnerships have been identified as a useful mechanism for addressing the health challenges that face society. In theory, partnerships achieve synergistic outcomes that amount to more than can be achieved by individual partners working on their own. This study aimed to identify key factors that influence health promotion partnership synergy. Data were collected from 337 partners in 40 health promotion partnerships using a postal survey. The questionnaire incorporated a number of multidimensional scales designed to assess the contribution of factors that influence partnership synergy. New validated scales were developed for synergy, trust, mistrust and power. Pearson's correlations and multiple regression analysis were used to identify the significance of each factor to partnership synergy. Trust, leadership and efficiency were shown to be the most important predictors of partnership synergy. Synergy is predicated on trust and leadership. Trust-building mechanisms need to be built into the partnership forming stage and this trust needs to be sustained throughout the collaborative process. We need to develop systems where the best leaders are put forward for intersectoral partnerships. This should be consistent across all sectors and organizations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Papua New Guinea 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
Unknown 84 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 13%
Professor 5 5%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 32 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 13 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2011.
All research outputs
#7,147,023
of 12,025,923 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion International
#892
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,158
of 259,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion International
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,025,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 259,932 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.