↓ Skip to main content

Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2018
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0363-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Cooke, Paolo Gardois, Andrew Booth

Abstract

Research capacity development (RCD) is considered fundamental to closing the evidence-practice gap, thereby contributing to health, wealth and knowledge for practice. Numerous frameworks and models have been proposed for RCD, but there is little evidence of what works for whom and under what circumstances. There is a need to identify mechanisms by which candidate interventions or clusters of interventions might achieve RCD and contribute to societal impact, thereby proving meaningful to stakeholders. A realist synthesis was used to develop programme theories for RCD. Structured database searches were conducted across seven databases to identify papers examining RCD in a health or social care context (1998-2013). In addition, citation searches for 10 key articles (citation pearls) were conducted across Google Scholar and Web of Science. Of 214 included articles, 116 reported on specific interventions or initiatives or their evaluation. The remaining 98 articles were discussion papers or explicitly sought to make a theoretical contribution. A core set of 36 RCD theoretical and conceptual papers were selected and analysed to generate mechanisms that map across macro contexts (individual, team, organisational, network). Data were extracted by means of 'If-Then' statements into an Excel spreadsheet. Models and frameworks were deconstructed into their original elements. Eight overarching programme theories were identified featuring mechanisms that were triggered across multiple contexts. Three of these fulfilled a symbolic role in signalling the importance of RCD (e.g. positive role models, signal importance, make a difference), whilst the remainder were more functional (e.g. liberate talents, release resource, exceed sum of parts, learning by doing and co-production of knowledge). Outcomes from one mechanism produced changes in context to stimulate mechanisms in other activities. The eight programme theories were validated with findings from 10 systematic reviews (2014-2017). This realist synthesis is the starting point for constructing an RCD framework shaped by these programme theories. Future work is required to further test and refine these findings against empirical data from intervention studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Social Sciences 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Unspecified 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 43 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,109,452
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#286
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,965
of 342,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 342,180 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.