↓ Skip to main content

Consumer and community involvement in health and medical research: evaluation by online survey of Australian training workshops for researchers

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, May 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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Consumer and community involvement in health and medical research: evaluation by online survey of Australian training workshops for researchers
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0030-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne McKenzie, Kirsten Alpers, Jane Heyworth, Cindy Phuong, Bec Hanley

Abstract

In Australia, since 2009, the Consumer and Community Involvement Program (formerly the Consumer and Community Participation Program) has developed and run workshops to help people working in health and medical research involve more consumers (patients) and community members (the public) in their research. In 2012, workshop attendees were invited to do an online survey to find out the effect, if any, that attending a workshop had on their awareness of and attitudes to consumer and community involvement. They were also asked about changes in their behaviour when it came to the involvement of consumers and the community in their work. The study found that, for people who answered the survey, more than double the number found consumer and community involvement very relevant after attending a workshop, compared with the number who thought that before attending one. Also, amongst those who answered the survey, 94 % thought that the workshop increased their understanding about involvement. Background There is limited evidence of the benefits of providing training workshops for researchers on how to involve consumers (patients) and the community (public) in health and medical research. Australian training workshops were evaluated to contribute to the evidence base. The key objective was to evaluate the impact of the workshops in increasing awareness of consumer and community involvement; changing attitudes to future implementation of involvement activities and influencing behaviour in the methods of involvement used. A secondary objective was to use a formal evaluation survey to build on the anecdotal feedback received from researchers about changes in awareness, attitudes and behaviours. Methods The study used a cross-sectional, online survey of researchers, students, clinicians, administrators and members of non-government organisations who attended Consumer and Community Involvement Program training workshops between 2009 and 2012 to ascertain changes to awareness, attitudes and behaviours related to consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. Results Changes in awareness and attitudes were demonstrated by more than double the number of respondents finding involvement very relevant after attending a workshop compared with those who did so before attending; 94 % of respondents agreed that the workshops increased their understanding of how involvement can add value to research. Conclusions The training workshops raised awareness and increased relevance of consumer and community involvement among Australian researchers who attended a workshop and responded to the survey. The results of the survey are also suggestive that the training led to behaviour changes through increased consumer and community involvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 26%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 7 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,148,489
of 16,651,954 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#173
of 239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,228
of 266,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,651,954 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 239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 266,978 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.