↓ Skip to main content

A complementary marriage of perspectives: understanding organizational social context using mixed methods

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
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
A complementary marriage of perspectives: understanding organizational social context using mixed methods
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0175-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rinad S Beidas, Courtney L Benjamin Wolk, Lucia M Walsh, Arthur C Evans, Matthew O Hurford, Frances K Barg

Abstract

BackgroundOrganizational factors impact the delivery of mental health services in community settings. Mixed-methods analytic approaches have been recommended, though little research within implementation science has explicitly compared inductive and deductive perspectives to understand their relative value in understanding the same constructs. The purpose of our study is to use two different paradigmatic approaches to deepen our understanding of organizational social context. We accomplish this by using a mixed-methods approach in an investigation of organizational social context in community mental health clinics.MethodsNineteen agencies, representing 23 sites, participated. Enrolled participants included 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Quantitative data was obtained via the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measure. Qualitative data, comprised of direct observation with spot sampling generated from agency visits, was coded using content analysis and grounded theory. The present study examined elements of organizational social context that would have been missed if only quantitative data had been obtained and utilized mixed methods to investigate if stratifying observations based on quantitative ratings from the OSC resulted in the emergence of differential themes.ResultsFour of the six OSC constructs were commonly observed in field observations (i.e., proficiency, rigidity, functionality, stress), while the remaining two constructs were not frequently observed (i.e., resistance, engagement). Constructs emerged related to organizational social context that may have been missed if only quantitative measurement was employed, including those around the physical environment, commentary about evidence-based practice initiatives, leadership, cultural diversity, distrust, and affect. Stratifying agencies by ¿best,¿ ¿average,¿ and ¿worst¿ organizational social context impacted interpretation for three constructs (affect, stress, and leadership).ConclusionsResults support the additive value of integrating inductive and deductive perspectives in implementation science research. This synthesis of approaches facilitated a more comprehensive understanding and interpretation of the findings than would have been possible if either methodology had been employed in isolation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 38 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#12,713,071
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,309
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,581
of 361,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#42
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 361,726 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.