↓ Skip to main content

Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
264 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-4-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pia C Kontos, Blake D Poland

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines have been a popular tool for the improvement of health care through the implementation of evidence from systematic research. Yet, it is increasingly clear that knowledge alone is insufficient to change practice. The social, cultural, and material contexts within which practice occurs may invite or reject innovation, complement or inhibit the activities required for success, and sustain or alter adherence to entrenched practices. However, knowledge translation (KT) models are limited in providing insight about how and why contextual contingencies interact, the causal mechanisms linking structural aspects of context and individual agency, and how these mechanisms influence KT. Another limitation of KT models is the neglect of methods to engage potential adopters of the innovation in critical reflection about aspects of context that influence practice, the relevance and meaning of innovation in the context of practice, and the identification of strategies for bringing about meaningful change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 10 5%
Canada 5 2%
Portugal 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 200 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 22%
Researcher 48 22%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 5%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 26 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 62 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Psychology 15 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 5%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 37 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,408,974
of 24,393,299 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,180
of 1,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,320
of 178,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,393,299 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 178,169 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.