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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A study protocol for applying the co-creating knowledge translation framework to a population health study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-98 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn Powell, Alison Kitson, Elizabeth Hoon, Jonathan Newbury, Anne Wilson, Justin Beilby |
| Abstract |
Population health research can generate significant outcomes for communities, while Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to expressly maximize the outcomes of knowledge producing activity. Yet the two approaches are seldom explicitly combined as part of the research process. A population health study in Port Lincoln, South Australia offered the opportunity to develop and apply the co-KT Framework to the entire research process. This is a new framework to facilitate knowledge formation collaboratively between researchers and communities throughout a research to intervention implementation process. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Librarian | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 25 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Design | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,279,577
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,502
of 199,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 199,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.