↓ Skip to main content

Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals?
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0163-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine A Lichten, Grace Marsden, Alexandra Pollitt, Vasiliki Kiparoglou, Keith M Channon, Jon Sussex

Abstract

Biomedical research can have impacts on patient care at research-active hospitals. We qualitatively evaluated the impact of the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (Oxford BRC), a university-hospital partnership, on the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare in local hospitals. Effectiveness and efficiency are conceptualised in terms of impacts perceived by clinicians on the quality, quantity and costs of patient care they deliver. First, we reviewed documentation from Oxford BRC and literature on the impact of research activity on patient care. Second, we interviewed leaders of the Oxford BRC's research to identify the direct and indirect impacts they expected their activity would have on local hospitals. Third, this information was used to inform interviews with senior clinicians responsible for patient care at Oxford's acute hospitals to discover what impacts they observed from research generally and from Oxford BRC's research work specifically. We compared and contrasted the results from the two sets of interviews using a qualitative approach. Finally, we identified themes emerging from the senior clinicians' responses, and compared them with an existing taxonomy of mechanisms through which quality of healthcare may be affected in research-active settings. We were able to interview 17 research leaders at the Oxford BRC and 19 senior clinicians at Oxford's acute hospitals. The research leaders identified a wide range of beneficial impacts that they expected might be felt at local hospitals as a result of their research activity. They expected the impact of their research activity on patient care to be generally positive. The senior clinicians responsible for patient care at those hospitals presented a more mixed picture, identifying many positive impacts, but also a smaller number of negative impacts, from research activity, including that of the Oxford BRC. We found the existing taxonomy of benefit types to be helpful in organising the findings, and propose modifications to further improve its usefulness. Impacts from research activity on the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care at the local acute hospitals, as perceived by senior clinicians, were more often beneficial than harmful. The Oxford BRC contributed to those impacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,568,121
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#376
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,878
of 418,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 418,332 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 54% of its contemporaries.