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 |
A protocol for a systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-149 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon D Scott, Thomas Rotter, Lisa Hartling, Thane Chambers, Katherine H Bannar-Martin |
| Abstract |
Experimental designs for evaluating knowledge translation (KT) interventions for professional behavior change can provide strong estimates of intervention effectiveness but offer limited insight how the intervention worked or not. Furthermore, trials provide little insight into the ways through which interventions lead to behavior change and how they are moderated by different facilitators and barriers. As a result, the ability to generalize the findings from one study to a different context, organization, or clinical problem is severely compromised. Consequently, researchers have started to explore the causal mechanisms in complementary studies (process evaluations) alongside experimental designs for evaluating KT interventions. This study focuses on improving process evaluations by synthesizing current evidence on process evaluations conducted alongside experimental designs for evaluating KT interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 6 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 January 2015.
All research outputs
#5,196,359
of 24,535,155 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,004
of 2,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,185
of 362,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,535,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 362,629 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 51% of its contemporaries.