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 |
Broadening measures of success: results of a behavioral health translational research training program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-017-0621-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie A. Baldwin, Heather J. Williamson, Emery R. Eaves, Bruce L. Levin, Donna L. Burton, Oliver T. Massey |
| Abstract |
While some research training programs have considered the importance of mentoring in inspiring professionals to engage in translational research, most evaluations emphasize outcomes specific to academic productivity as primary measures of training program success. The impact of such training or mentoring programs on stakeholders and local community organizations engaged in translational research efforts has received little attention. The purpose of this evaluation is to explore outcomes other than traditional academic productivity in a translational research graduate certificate program designed to pair graduate students and behavioral health professionals in collaborative service-learning projects. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with scholars, community mentors, and academic mentors were conducted regarding a translational research program to identify programmatic impacts. Interviews were transcribed and coded by the research team to identify salient themes related to programmatic outcomes. Results are framed using the Translational Research Impact Scale which is organized into three overarching domains of potential impact: (1) research-related impacts, (2) translational impacts, and (3) societal impacts. This evaluation demonstrates the program's impact in all three domains of the TRIS evaluation framework. Graduate certificate participants (scholars) reported that gaining experience in applied behavioral health settings added useful skills and expertise to their present careers and increased their interest in pursuing translational research. Scholars also described benefits resulting from networks gained through participation in the program, including valuable ties between the university and community behavioral health organizations. This evaluation of the outcomes of a graduate certificate program providing training in translational research highlights the need for more community-oriented and practice-based measures of success. Encouraging practitioner involvement in translational research is vital to translate knowledge into practice and to enable practice-based needs to inform research and policy. A more flexible approach to measuring programmatic success in research training programs can help bridge the knowledge translation gap. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 30% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 10% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
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 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,707,127
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#991
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,054
of 316,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 316,512 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 71% of its contemporaries.
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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.