Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29249842›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2017

Mapping the Growing Discipline of Dissemination and Implementation Science in Health.

Wynne E Norton, Alina Lungeanu, David A Chambers, Noshir Contractor

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wynne E NortonDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Alina LungeanuPopulation Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
David A ChambersDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Noshir ContractorDepartments of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Communication Studies, and Management and Organizations, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
National Cancer Institute · USNorthwestern University · USPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

Modeling scientific workforce dynamics using social network analysisU01GM112623 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI WEBER, GRIFFIN M · 2015 to 2018
$1.6M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM112623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in health has grown considerably in the past decade. Despite the potential for advancing the science, limited research has focused on mapping the field.

methodsWe administered an online survey to individuals in the D&I field to assess participants' demographics and expertise, as well as engagement with journals and conferences, publications, and grants. A combined roster-nomination method was used to collect data on participants' advice networks and collaboration networks; participants' motivations for choosing collaborators was also assessed. Frequency and descriptive statistics were used to characterize the overall sample; network metrics were used to characterize both networks. Among a sub-sample of respondents who were researchers, regression analyses identified predictors of two metrics of academic performance (i.e., publications and funded grants).

resultsA total of 421 individuals completed the survey, representing a 30.75% response rate of eligible individuals. Most participants were White (n = 343), female (n = 284, 67.4%), and identified as a researcher (n = 340, 81%). Both the advice and the collaboration networks displayed characteristics of a small world network. The most important motivations for selecting collaborators were aligned with advancing the science (i.e., prior collaborators, strong reputation, and good collaborators) rather than relying on human proclivities for homophily, proximity, and friendship. Among a sub-sample of 295 researchers, expertise (individual predictor), status (advice network), and connectedness (collaboration network) were significant predictors of both metrics of academic performance.

conclusionsNetwork-based interventions can enhance collaboration and productivity; future research is needed to leverage these data to advance the field.

Indexed as

dissemination scienceimplementation sciencenetwork analysisNetwork sciencescientometrics

Identifiers

PMID29249842
PMCPMC5729761
OpenAlexW2735104355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.