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 |
Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Randall Teal, Dawn M Bergmire, Matthew Johnston, Bryan J Weiner |
| Abstract |
Since 2003, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to restructure the clinical research enterprise in the United States by promoting collaborative research partnerships between academically-based investigators and community-based physicians. By increasing community-based provider participation in research (CBPPR), the NIH seeks to advance the science of discovery by conducting research in clinical settings where most people get their care, and accelerate the translation of research results into everyday clinical practice. Although CBPPR is seen as a promising strategy for promoting the use of evidence-based clinical services in community practice settings, few empirical studies have examined the organizational factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CBPPR. The purpose of this study is to explore the organizational start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in community-based practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 22% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 May 2012.
All research outputs
#7,061,479
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,149
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,534
of 165,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 165,006 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.