| Title |
The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zoë Slote Morris, Steven Wooding, Jonathan Grant |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively 'blindfolds' investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 728 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 States | 163 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 89 | 12% |
| Canada | 73 | 10% |
| Australia | 30 | 4% |
| Spain | 23 | 3% |
| Ireland | 8 | 1% |
| Norway | 5 | <1% |
| Mexico | 5 | <1% |
| Denmark | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 57 | 8% |
| Unknown | 271 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 474 | 65% |
| Scientists | 126 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 99 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 25 | 3% |
| Unknown | 4 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,648 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1612 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 242 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 228 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 213 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 128 | 8% |
| Other | 126 | 8% |
| Other | 342 | 21% |
| Unknown | 369 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 426 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 182 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 119 | 7% |
| Psychology | 93 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 3% |
| Other | 318 | 19% |
| Unknown | 458 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1770. 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 24 April 2024.
All research outputs
#5,894
of 25,791,949 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#4
of 3,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7
of 249,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 249,899 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.