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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The use of technology enhanced learning in health research capacity development: lessons from a cross country research partnership
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Globalization and Health, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12992-016-0154-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Byrne, L. Donaldson, L. Manda-Taylor, R. Brugha, A. Matthews, S. MacDonald, V. Mwapasa, M. Petersen, A. Walsh |
| Abstract |
With the recognition of the need for research capacity strengthening for advancing health and development, this research capacity article explores the use of technology enhanced learning in the delivery of a collaborative postgraduate blended Master's degree in Malawi. Two research questions are addressed: (i) Can technology enhanced learning be used to develop health research capacity?, and: (ii) How can learning content be designed that is transferrable across different contexts? An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was adopted for the evaluation of technology enhanced learning in the Masters programme. A number of online surveys were administered, student participation in online activities monitored and an independent evaluation of the programme conducted. Remote collaboration and engagement are paramount in the design of a blended learning programme and support was needed for selecting the most appropriate technical tools. Internet access proved problematic despite developing the content around low bandwidth availability and training was required for students and teachers/trainers on the tools used. Varying degrees of engagement with the tools used was recorded, and the support of a learning technologist was needed to navigate through challenges faced. Capacity can be built in health research through blended learning programmes. In relation to transferability, the support required institutionally for technology enhanced learning needs to be conceptualised differently from support for face-to-face teaching. Additionally, differences in pedagogical approaches and styles between institutions, as well as existing social norms and values around communication, need to be embedded in the content development if the material is to be used beyond the pilot resource-intensive phase of a project. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 33% |
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 20 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#5,805,261
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#712
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,099
of 306,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 306,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.