↓ Skip to main content

Development, implementation and evaluation of a clinical research engagement and leadership capacity building program in a large Australian health care service

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Development, implementation and evaluation of a clinical research engagement and leadership capacity building program in a large Australian health care service
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0525-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie L. Misso, Dragan Ilic, Terry P. Haines, Alison M. Hutchinson, Christine E. East, Helena J. Teede

Abstract

Health professionals need to be integrated more effectively in clinical research to ensure that research addresses clinical needs and provides practical solutions at the coal face of care. In light of limited evidence on how best to achieve this, evaluation of strategies to introduce, adapt and sustain evidence-based practices across different populations and settings is required. This project aims to address this gap through the co-design, development, implementation, evaluation, refinement and ultimately scale-up of a clinical research engagement and leadership capacity building program in a clinical setting with little to no co-ordinated approach to clinical research engagement and education. The protocol is based on principles of research capacity building and on a six-step framework, which have previously led to successful implementation and long-term sustainability. A mixed methods study design will be used. Methods will include: (1) a review of the literature about strategies that engage health professionals in research through capacity building and/or education in research methods; (2) a review of existing local research education and support elements; (3) a needs assessment in the local clinical setting, including an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews; (4) co-design and development of an educational and support program; (5) implementation of the program in the clinical environment; and (6) pre- and post-implementation evaluation and ultimately program scale-up. The evaluation focuses on research activity and knowledge, attitudes and preferences about clinical research, evidence-based practice and leadership and post implementation, about their satisfaction with the program. The investigators will evaluate the feasibility and effect of the program according to capacity building measures and will revise where appropriate prior to scale-up. It is anticipated that this clinical research engagement and leadership capacity building program will enable and enhance clinically relevant research to be led and conducted by health professionals in the health setting. This approach will also encourage identification of areas of clinical uncertainty and need that can be addressed through clinical research within the health setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 128 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Lecturer 9 7%
Other 32 25%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 15%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 39 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,816,327
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,834
of 3,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,654
of 398,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#64
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 398,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.