↓ Skip to main content

Alliance members’ roles in collective field-building: an assessment of leadership and championship within the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Alliance members’ roles in collective field-building: an assessment of leadership and championship within the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0265-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica Di Ruggiero, Natalie Kishchuk, Sarah Viehbeck, Nancy Edwards, Kerry Robinson, Barbara Riley, Heather Smith Fowler

Abstract

The Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) is a multi-stakeholder alliance founded in 2006 to advance population health intervention research (PHIR). PHIRIC aimed to strengthen Canada's capacity to conduct and use such research to inform policy and practice to improve the public's health by building PHIR as a field of research. In 2014, an evaluative study of PHIRIC at organisational and system levels was conducted, guided by a field-building and collaborative action perspective. The study involved 17 qualitative key informant interviews with 21 current and former PHIRIC Planning Committee and Working Group members. The interviews examined how individuals and organisations were acting as champions and exerting leadership in building the field of PHIR. Founding PHIRIC organisational members have been championing PHIR at organisational and system levels. While the PHIR field has progressed in terms of enhanced funding, legitimacy, profile and capacity, some members and organisations faced constraints and challenges acting as leaders and champions in their respective environments. Expectations about the future of PHIRIC and field-building of PHIR were mixed, where longer-term and founding members of PHIRIC expressed more optimism than recent members. All agreed on the need for incorporating perspectives of decision-makers into PHIR directions and initiatives. The findings contribute to understanding alliance members' roles in leadership and championship for field-building more generally, and for population health and PHIR specifically. Building this field requires multi-level efforts, collaborative action and distributed leadership to create the necessary conditions for PHIRIC members to both benefit from and contribute to advancing PHIR as a field. Lessons from this 'made in Canada' model may be of interest to other countries regarding the structures needed for PHIR field-building.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,137,602
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#722
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,259
of 439,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 439,982 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.