↓ Skip to main content

A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2016
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0082-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Kothari, Charmaine McPherson, Dana Gore, Benita Cohen, Marjorie MacDonald, Shannon L. Sibbald

Abstract

Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network design and outcome evaluation. There is, however, a gap in the literature regarding how public health networks use research and knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to report on the qualitative findings from a larger study that explored (1) the experiences of public health networks with using research and knowledge, and (2) the perceived benefits of using research and knowledge. A multiple case study approach framed this study. Focus group data were collected from participants through a purposive sample of four public health networks. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis and Nvivo™ software supported data management. Each network had the opportunity to participate in data interpretation. All networks used published research studies and other types of knowledge to accomplish their work, although in each network research and knowledge played different but complementary roles. Neither research nor other types of knowledge were privileged, and an approach that blended varied knowledge types was typically used. Network experiences with research and knowledge produced individual and collective benefits. A novel finding was that research and knowledge were both important in shaping network function. This study shifts the focus in the current literature from public health departments to the community setting where public health collaborates with a broader spectrum of actors to ameliorate health inequities. Both formal research and informal knowledge were found to be important for collaborative public health networks. Examining the benefits of research and knowledge use within public health networks may help us to better understand the relationships among process (the collaborative use of research and knowledge), structure (networks) and outcomes (benefits).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 99 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 23%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Unspecified 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,930,408
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#553
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,421
of 403,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 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 55% 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 403,944 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 23 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 56% of its contemporaries.