↓ Skip to main content

An exploratory analysis of the nature of informal knowledge underlying theories of planned action used for public health oriented knowledge translation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
An exploratory analysis of the nature of informal knowledge underlying theories of planned action used for public health oriented knowledge translation
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1391-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Kothari, Jennifer A. Boyko, Andrea Campbell-Davison

Abstract

Informal knowledge is used in public health practice to make sense of research findings. Although knowledge translation theories highlight the importance of informal knowledge, it is not clear to what extent the same literature provides guidance in terms of how to use it in practice. The objective of this study was to address this gap by exploring what planned action theories suggest in terms of using three types of informal knowledge: local, experiential and expert. We carried out an exploratory secondary analysis of the planned action theories that informed the development of a popular knowledge translation theory. Our sample included twenty-nine (n = 29) papers. We extracted information from these papers about sources of and guidance for using informal knowledge, and then carried out a thematic analysis. We found that theories of planned action provide guidance (including sources of, methods for identifying, and suggestions for use) for using local, experiential and expert knowledge. This study builds on previous knowledge translation related work to provide insight into the practical use of informal knowledge. Public health practitioners can refer to the guidance summarized in this paper to inform their decision-making. Further research about how to use informal knowledge in public health practice is needed given the value being accorded to using informal knowledge in public health decision-making processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 7 19%
Librarian 2 5%
Professor 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,122,389
of 8,800,428 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#475
of 2,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,158
of 233,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#25
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,800,428 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 233,705 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 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.