↓ Skip to main content

Mutual research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study of two-way partnerships in public health research

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Mutual research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study of two-way partnerships in public health research
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-11-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Redman-MacLaren, David J MacLaren, Humpress Harrington, Rowena Asugeni, Relmah Timothy-Harrington, Esau Kekeubata, Richard Speare

Abstract

Capacity building has been employed in international health and development sectors to describe the process of 'experts' from more resourced countries training people in less resourced countries. Hence the concept has an implicit power imbalance based on 'expert' knowledge. In 2011, a health research strengthening workshop was undertaken at Atoifi Adventist Hospital, Solomon Islands to further strengthen research skills of the Hospital and College of Nursing staff and East Kwaio community leaders through partnering in practical research projects. The workshop was based on participatory research frameworks underpinned by decolonising methodologies, which sought to challenge historical power imbalances and inequities. Our research question was, "Is research capacity strengthening a two-way process?"

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Sierra Leone 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 81 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Social Sciences 14 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 20 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,370,838
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#859
of 1,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,729
of 244,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#18
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 244,166 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 74% of its contemporaries.