↓ Skip to main content

The role of interpersonal communication in the process of knowledge mobilization within a community-based organization: a network analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2014
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The role of interpersonal communication in the process of knowledge mobilization within a community-based organization: a network analysis
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather L Gainforth, Amy E Latimer-Cheung, Peter Athanasopoulos, Spencer Moore, Kathleen A Martin Ginis

Abstract

Diffusion of innovations theory has been widely used to explain knowledge mobilization of research findings. This theory posits that individuals who are more interpersonally connected within an organization may be more likely to adopt an innovation (e.g., research evidence) than individuals who are less interconnected. Research examining this tenet of diffusion of innovations theory in the knowledge mobilization literature is limited. The purpose of the present study was to use network analysis to examine the role of interpersonal communication in the adoption and mobilization of the physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury (SCI) among staff in a community-based organization (CBO).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
France 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Puerto Rico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 120 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 33 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Psychology 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Computer Science 8 6%
Other 33 26%
Unknown 17 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 June 2014.
All research outputs
#2,069,915
of 17,391,055 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#565
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,066
of 196,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,391,055 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 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 196,137 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.