| 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
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 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 | 11 | 13% |
| Canada | 10 | 11% |
| United States | 10 | 11% |
| Chile | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Colombia | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 55% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 21% |
| Scientists | 17 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,925 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 | 1855 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 346 | 18% |
| Researcher | 277 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 271 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 135 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 117 | 6% |
| Other | 404 | 21% |
| Unknown | 375 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 430 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 276 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 253 | 13% |
| Psychology | 119 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 60 | 3% |
| Other | 307 | 16% |
| Unknown | 480 | 25% |
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
#430,216
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#25
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,964
of 182,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 182,907 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.