↓ Skip to main content

Research funder required research partnerships: a qualitative inquiry

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Research funder required research partnerships: a qualitative inquiry
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0176-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon L Sibbald, Jacqueline Tetroe, Ian D Graham

Abstract

BackgroundResearchers and funding agencies are increasingly showing interest in the application of research findings and focusing attention on engagement of knowledge-users in the research process as a means of increasing the uptake of research findings. The expectation is that research findings derived from these researcher-knowledge-user partnerships will be more readily applied when they became available. The objective of this study was to investigate the experiences, perceived barriers, successes, and opinions of researchers and knowledge-users funded under the Canadian Institutes of Health Research¿s integrated Knowledge Translation funding opportunities for a better understanding of these collaborations.MethodsParticipants, both researchers and knowledge-users, completed an online survey followed by an individual semi-structured phone interview supporting a mixed methods study. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively using a modified grounded theory approach.ResultsSurvey analysis identified three major partnership types: token, asymmetric, and egalitarian. Interview analysis revealed trends in perceived barriers and successes directly related to the partnership formation and style. While all partnerships experienced barriers, token partnerships had the most challenges and general poor perception of partnerships. The majority of respondents found that common goals and equality in partnerships did not remove barriers but increased participants¿ ability to look for solutions.ConclusionsWe learned of effective mechanisms and strategies used by researchers and knowledge-users for mitigating barriers when collaborating. Funders could take a larger role in helping facilitate, nurture, and sustain the partnerships to which they award grants.

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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Professor 7 7%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 26 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Psychology 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 14 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,929,949
of 21,321,365 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#671
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,097
of 346,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#49
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 346,332 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.