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 |
How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0339-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
W. Dominika Wranik, Jill A. Hayden, Sheri Price, Robin M.N. Parker, Susan M. Haydt, Jeanette M. Edwards, Esther Suter, Alan Katz, Liesl L. Gambold, Adrian R. Levy |
| Abstract |
Western publicly funded health care systems increasingly rely on interdisciplinary teams to support primary care delivery and management of chronic conditions. This knowledge synthesis focuses on what is known in the academic and grey literature about optimal structural characteristics of teams. Its goal is to assess which factors contribute to the effective functioning of interdisciplinary primary care teams and improved health system outcomes, with specific focus on (i) team structure contribution to team process, (ii) team process contribution to primary care goals, and (iii) team structure contribution to primary care goals. The systematic search of academic literature focuses on four chronic conditions and co-morbidities. Within this scope, qualitative and quantitative studies that assess the effects of team characteristics (funding, governance, organization) on care process and patient outcomes will be searched. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PAIS, Web of Science) will be searched systematically. Online web-based searches will be supported by the Grey Matters Tool. Studies will be included, if they report on interdisciplinary primary care in publicly funded Western health systems, and address the relationships between team structure, process, and/or patient outcomes. Studies will be selected in a three-stage screening process (title/abstract/full text) by two independent reviewers in each stage. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. An a priori framework will be applied to data extraction, and a narrative framework approach is used for the synthesis. Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, an electronic decision support tool will be developed for decision makers. It will be searchable along two axes of inquiry: (i) what primary care goals are supported by specific team characteristics and (ii) how should teams be structured to support specific primary care goals? The results of this evidence review will contribute directly to the design of interdisciplinary primary care teams. The optimized design will support the goals of primary care, contributing to the improved health of populations. PROSPERO CRD42016041884. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Librarian | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 13% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,880,010
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,472
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,308
of 320,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 320,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.