↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge translation of research findings

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2012
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 (#25 of 1,821)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
6 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
87 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1688 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1930 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Knowledge translation of research findings
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy M Grimshaw, Martin P Eccles, John N Lavis, Sophie J Hill, Janet E Squires

Abstract

One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 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 1,930 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 19 <1%
United Kingdom 13 <1%
United States 6 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Peru 2 <1%
Other 17 <1%
Unknown 1860 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 346 18%
Researcher 277 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 272 14%
Student > Bachelor 136 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 117 6%
Other 407 21%
Unknown 375 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 430 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 276 14%
Social Sciences 253 13%
Psychology 119 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 3%
Other 312 16%
Unknown 480 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#430,216
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#25
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,964
of 182,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 182,907 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.