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 |
Implementing a protocol for a research impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-018-0349-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shanthi Ramanathan, Penny Reeves, Simon Deeming, Julie Bernhardt, Michael Nilsson, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Frederick Rohan Walker, Leeanne Carey, Sandy Middleton, Elizabeth Lynch, Andrew Searles |
| Abstract |
There is growing recognition that the wider benefits of research (economic, social and health impacts) should be assessed and valued alongside traditional research performance metrics such as peer-reviewed papers. Translation of findings into policy and practice needs to accelerate and pathways to impact need to be better understood. This research protocol outlines a mixed methods study to apply the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke). FAIT is purpose-designed to encourage research translation and assess research impact but lacks validation. Phase 1 involves application of the FAIT-modified programme logic model to each CRE-Stroke research stream including identifying process, output and impact metrics, as well as end users of the research. A scoping review will inform potential impacts anticipated from CRE-Stroke. In Phase 2, audit and feedback on achievements against plans will track and encourage research translation. Logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. In Phase 3, three proven methods for measuring research impact - Payback, economic assessment and narratives - will be applied to each research stream and the data triangulated and reported in Phase 4. The feasibility of applying FAIT will also be assessed as part of Phase 3. Use of prospective, comprehensive research impact frameworks for large interdisciplinary programmes of research is rare. FAIT's application to CRE-Stroke will provide opportunity for the impact of CRE-Stroke to be assessed and a range of impacts beyond standard academic achievements to be reliably reported. The feasibility of FAIT's application will also be assessed and, if necessary, refined. The usefulness of FAIT for encouraging research translation will also be described and may prove useful for other programmes looking to implement a research impact framework. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 8 | 40% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 45% |
| Scientists | 7 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,133,960
of 25,121,016 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#444
of 1,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,353
of 336,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#33
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,121,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 336,751 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.