↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Collaboration in a National Research Partnership in Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care: A Network Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Assessing Collaboration in a National Research Partnership in Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care: A Network Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances C. Cunningham, Veronica Matthews, Anna Sheahan, Jodie Bailie, Ross S. Bailie

Abstract

Background: The ABCD National Research Partnership was formed in mid-2010 as a collaboration to harness the expertise, experiences and resources of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak bodies, government and research organisations to improve the quality of Indigenous primary health care. The aim of this study was to apply social network methods to assess collaboration and functioning of the Partnership at two time-points. Methods: A social network analysis (SNA) survey was conducted in early 2013, with a follow-up survey in mid-2014. In the two survey rounds, online surveys were emailed to one senior person of the organisation participating in the Partnership (2013: 14 organisations; 2014: 11 organisations). The surveys collected data on respondent perceptions of the Partnership as well as social network relationship data. Social network methods were used to apply standardised metrics to assess how well the partnership was functioning as a collaborative three years into its operation, and in its fourth year. Results: Most respondents rated the Partnership as successful in progressing toward its goals. Network density and centrality scores show a well-connected partnership spanning different organisational types and states/territories (Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and Far-West New South Wales). High centrality scores reflect high connectivity between key hubs in the network, contributing toward the shared goal of improved Indigenous primary health care. Network diagrams show key structural positions by organisational type, the frequency and intensity of interactions and the strengths and potential vulnerabilities in the partnership network, with comparisons at two time points for the partnership. Conclusions: The study found that the Partnership was effective in securing collaboration across its partners. Partners' contribution of resources reflected their active involvement. There was a high level of agreement on the achievement of the key goals of the Partnership, showing shared sense-making amongst partners. SNA tools assisted with monitoring the network over time to develop strategies supporting connections between partners for sustaining collaborative learning. Study findings identify successful approaches for a research partnership to improve quality of care in Indigenous primary health care and provide encouragement for wider applications for research partnerships and collaborations in Australia and internationally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,333,671
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,961
of 14,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,535
of 343,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#46
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 343,226 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.