↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Evaluation of the Community Research Fellows Training Program

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantitative Evaluation of the Community Research Fellows Training Program
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Jewel D. Stafford, Vetta Lynn Thompson, Bethany Johnson-Javois, Melody S. Goodman

Abstract

The community research fellows training (CRFT) program is a community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiative for the St. Louis area. This 15-week program, based on a Master in Public Health curriculum, was implemented by the Division of Public Health Sciences at Washington University School of Medicine and the Siteman Cancer Center. We measure the knowledge gained by participants and evaluate participant and faculty satisfaction of the CRFT program both in terms of meeting learning objectives and actively engaging the community in the research process. We conducted analyses on 44 community members who participated in the CRFT program and completed the baseline and follow-up knowledge assessments. Knowledge gain is measured by a baseline and follow-up assessment given at the first and final session. Additionally, pre- and post-tests are given after the first 12 sessions. To measure satisfaction, program evaluations are completed by both the participants and faculty after each topic. Mid-way through the program, a mid-term evaluation was administered to assess the program's community engagement. We analyzed the results from the assessments, pre- and post-tests, and evaluations. The CRFT participants' knowledge increased at follow-up as compared with baseline on average by a 16.5 point difference (p < 0.0001). Post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores for 11 of the 12 sessions. Both participants and faculty enjoyed the training and rated all session well. The CRFT program was successful in increasing community knowledge, participant satisfaction, and faculty satisfaction. This success has enhanced the infrastructure for CBPR as well as led to CBPR pilot projects that address health disparities in the St. Louis Greater Metropolitan Area.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Mathematics 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,091,708
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,789
of 9,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,332
of 262,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#23
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 262,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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.