↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge translation of research findings

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 1,798)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
6 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
88 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1661 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1907 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Knowledge translation of research findings
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy M Grimshaw, Martin P Eccles, John N Lavis, Sophie J Hill, Janet E Squires

Abstract

One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 1,907 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 19 <1%
United Kingdom 13 <1%
United States 6 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Peru 2 <1%
Other 17 <1%
Unknown 1837 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 343 18%
Researcher 278 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 271 14%
Student > Bachelor 132 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 115 6%
Other 403 21%
Unknown 365 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 427 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 275 14%
Social Sciences 254 13%
Psychology 118 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 3%
Other 304 16%
Unknown 469 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#417,859
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#21
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,929
of 171,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 171,676 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 98% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.