↓ Skip to main content

Should we feed back research results in the midst of a study?

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Should we feed back research results in the midst of a study?
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-87
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole A Estabrooks, Gary F Teare, Peter G Norton

Abstract

This report is an introduction to a series of three research papers that describe the evolution of the approaches taken by the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) research team during its first four years to feed back the research findings to study participants. TREC is an observational multi-method health services research project underway in 36 nursing homes in the prairie provinces of Canada. TREC has actively involved decision makers from the sector in all stages from initial planning, through data collection to dissemination activities. However, it was not planned as a fully integrated knowledge translation project. These three papers describe our progress towards fully integrated knowledge translation--with respect to timely and requested feedback processes. The first paper reports on the process and outcomes of creating and evaluating the feedback of research findings to healthcare aides (unregulated health professionals). These aides provide over 80% of the direct care in our sample and actively requested the feedback as a condition of their continued cooperation in the data acquisition process. The second paper describes feedback from nursing home administrators on preliminary research findings (a facility annual report) and evaluation of the reports' utility. The third paper discusses an approach to providing a more in-depth form of feedback (expanded feedback report) at one of the TREC nursing homes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 107 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 18%
Social Sciences 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 20 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,564
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,799
of 187,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 187,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.