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 |
Do knowledge translation (KT) plans help to structure KT practices?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-016-0118-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Salomon Tchameni Ngamo, Karine Souffez, Catherine Lord, Christian Dagenais |
| Abstract |
A knowledge translation (KT) planning template is a roadmap laying out the core elements to be considered when structuring the implementation of KT activities by researchers and practitioners. Since 2010, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ; Québec Public Health Institute) has provided tools and guidance to in-house project teams to help them develop KT plans. This study sought to identify the dimensions included in those plans and which ones were integrated and how. The results will be of interest to funding agencies and scientific organizations that provide frameworks for KT planning. The operationalization of KT planning dimensions was assessed in a mixed methods case study of 14 projects developed at the INSPQ between 2010 and 2013. All plans were assessed (rated) using an analytical tool developed for this study and data from interviews with the planning coordinators. The analytical tool and interview guide were based on eight core KT dimensions identified in the literature. Analysis of the plans and interviews revealed that the dimensions best integrated into the KT plans were 'analysis of the context (barriers and facilitators) and of users' needs', 'knowledge to be translated', 'KT partners', 'KT strategies' and, to a lesser extent, 'overall KT approach'. The least well integrated dimensions were 'knowledge about knowledge users', 'KT process evaluation' and 'resources'. While the planning coordinators asserted that a plan did not need to include all the dimensions to ensure its quality and success, nevertheless the dimensions that received less attention might have been better incorporated if they had been supported with more instruments related to those dimensions and sustained methodological guidance. Overall, KT planning templates appear to be an appreciated mechanism for supporting KT reflexive practices. Based on this study and our experience, we recommend using KT plans cautiously when assessing project efficacy and funding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 50% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Senegal | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Scientists | 4 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Librarian | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,725,563
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#532
of 1,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,138
of 354,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 354,323 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 81% 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 65% of its contemporaries.