| Title |
Innovative teaching methods for capacity building in knowledge translation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-11-85 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hayfaa A Wahabi, Lubna A Al-Ansary |
| Abstract |
In some current healthcare settings, there is a noticeable absence of national institutions committed to the synthesis and use of evidence in healthcare decision- and policy-making. This absence creates a need to broaden the responsibilities of healthcare providers to include knowledge brokering and advocacy in order to optimize knowledge translation to other stakeholders, especially policy-makers. However, this process requires practitioners and researchers to acquire certain types of knowledge and skills. This article introduces two innovative methods for capacity building in knowledge translation (KT). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 25% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 February 2021.
All research outputs
#12,558,792
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,415
of 3,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,004
of 136,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#11
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 136,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 60% of its contemporaries.