Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 988)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
73 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0380-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Rycroft-Malone, Christopher R Burton, Joyce Wilkinson, Gill Harvey, Brendan McCormack, Richard Baker, Sue Dopson, Ian D. Graham, Sophie Staniszewska, Carl Thompson, Steven Ariss, Lucy Melville-Richards, Lynne Williams, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Burton, Christopher R, Wilkinson, Joyce, Harvey, Gill, McCormack, Brendan, Baker, Richard, Dopson, Sue, Graham, Ian D, Staniszewska, Sophie, Thompson, Carl, Ariss, Steven, Melville-Richards, Lucy, Williams, Lynne

Abstract

Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation. A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds. The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations' architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that 'what's in it for me' resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation. These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Australia 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 43%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Psychology 5 14%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#140,834
of 7,374,821 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#17
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,033
of 323,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,374,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 323,445 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.