↓ Skip to main content

Net benefits: assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Net benefits: assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances C Cunningham, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Johanna I Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract

In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 128 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 24%
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Psychology 18 14%
Social Sciences 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 36 27%
Unknown 22 17%

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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,456,532
of 21,339,655 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,003
of 1,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,252
of 177,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#50
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,339,655 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 177,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.