↓ Skip to main content

Researcher-decision-maker partnerships in health services research: Practical challenges, guiding principles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Researcher-decision-maker partnerships in health services research: Practical challenges, guiding principles
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Hofmeyer, Catherine Scott, Laura Lagendyk

Abstract

In health services research, there is a growing view that partnerships between researchers and decision-makers (i.e., collaborative research teams) will enhance the effective translation and use of research results into policy and practice. For this reason, there is an increasing expectation by health research funding agencies that health system managers, policy-makers, practitioners and clinicians will be members of funded research teams. While this view has merit to improve the uptake of research findings, the practical challenges of building and sustaining collaborative research teams with members from both inside and outside the research setting requires consideration. A small body of literature has discussed issues that may arise when conducting research in one's own setting; however, there is a lack of clear guidance to deal with practical challenges that may arise in research teams that include team members who have links with the organization/community being studied (i.e., are "insiders").

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Social Sciences 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 September 2012.
All research outputs
#6,914,371
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,388
of 7,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,623
of 170,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#47
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 170,196 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 52% of its contemporaries.