↓ Skip to main content

Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in healthcare. study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in healthcare. study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yiannis Kyratsis, Raheelah Ahmad, Alison Holmes

Abstract

We know that patient care can be improved by implementing evidence-based innovations and applying research findings linked to good practice. Successfully implementing innovations in complex organisations, such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS), is often challenging as multiple contextual dynamics mediate the process. Research studies have explored the challenges of introducing innovations into healthcare settings and have contributed to a better understanding of why potentially useful innovations are not always implemented in practice, even if backed by strong evidence. Mediating factors include health policy and health system influences, organisational factors, and individual and professional attitudes, including decision makers' perceptions of innovation evidence. There has been limited research on how different forms of evidence are accessed and utilised by organisational decision makers during innovation adoption. We also know little about how diverse healthcare professionals (clinicians, administrators) make sense of evidence and how this collective sensemaking mediates the uptake of innovations.

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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 192 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 13%
Researcher 25 12%
Other 18 9%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 30 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 23%
Social Sciences 35 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 25 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Psychology 10 5%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 37 18%
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 22 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,639
of 1,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,189
of 160,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 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 1,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 160,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.