↓ Skip to main content

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care
Published in
BMC Primary Care, October 2005
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Cooke

Abstract

Building research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB) DISCUSSION: This article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes. The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Zambia 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 327 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 69 20%
Student > Master 58 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 12%
Other 25 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 21 6%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 58 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 27%
Social Sciences 59 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 4%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 78 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 February 2023.
All research outputs
#3,113,463
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#413
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,531
of 75,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 75,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them