↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing evidence use in public health nutrition policymaking: theoretical insights from a New Zealand case study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Enhancing evidence use in public health nutrition policymaking: theoretical insights from a New Zealand case study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0154-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Field, R. Gauld, M. Lawrence

Abstract

Enhancing the use of evidence in policymaking is critical to addressing the global burden of nutrition-related disease. Whilst the public health nutrition community has embraced evidence-informed policymaking, their approach of defining relevant evidence and evaluating policy has not brought about major shifts in policymaking. This article uses a public health nutrition case study to refine a novel theory-informed framework for enhancing the use of evidence in government public health nutrition policymaking. Our aim is to contribute insights from evidence-informed policy to the emerging paradigm in public health nutrition policymaking. An enquiry framework informed by three groups of theories underpinning evidence-informed policy was used to explore the role of socially mediated processes on the use of evidence. A public health nutrition case study on food marketing to New Zealand children was conducted to refine the framework. Interview data collected from 54 individuals representing four key policy stakeholder groups, policymakers, academics, and food industry and non-government organisations were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. To enhance theoretical robustness, an alternative hypothesis of political explanations for evidence use was explored alongside the enquiry framework. We found the prevailing political climate influenced the impact of advocacy for evidence inclusive processes at the meta-policy and policymaking process levels and in policy community relationships. Low levels of awareness of the impact of these processes on evidence use and uncoordinated advocacy resulted in the perpetuation of ad hoc policymaking. These findings informed refinements to the enquiry framework. Our study highlights the role advocates can play in shifting government public health nutrition policymaking systems towards enhanced use of evidence. Our Advocacy for Evidence Use framework argues for a three-channel approach to advocacy for using evidence in the public interest. The framework provides a means for building a constituency for evidence use in public health nutrition and adds understanding about advocacy to the field of evidence-informed policy. Future research should examine the impact of coordinated advocacy on public health nutrition policymaking systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Social Sciences 16 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,082,838
of 23,327,904 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#806
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,353
of 418,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,327,904 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 418,266 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.