↓ Skip to main content

International consultation on long-term global health research priorities, research capacity and research uptake in developing countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
International consultation on long-term global health research priorities, research capacity and research uptake in developing countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0181-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Mc Conalogue, Sue Kinn, Jo-Ann Mulligan, Malcolm McNeil

Abstract

In recognition of the need for long-term planning for global health research, and to inform future global health research priorities, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) carried out a public consultation between May and June 2015. The consultation aimed to elicit views on the (1) the long-term future global health research priorities; (2) areas likely to be less important over time; (3) how to improve research uptake in low-income countries; and (4) how to build research capacity in low-income countries. An online consultation was used to survey a wide range of participants on global health research priorities. The qualitative data was analysed using a thematic analysis, with frequency of codes in responses tabulated to approximate relative importance of themes and sub-themes. The public consultation yielded 421 responses. The survey responses confirmed the growing importance of non-communicable disease as a global health research priority, being placed above infectious diseases. Participants felt that the key area for reducing funding prioritisation was infectious diseases. The involvement of policymakers and other key stakeholders was seen as critical to drive research uptake, as was collaboration and partnership. Several methods to build research capacity in low-income countries were described, including capacity building educational programmes, mentorship programmes and research institution collaboration and partnership. The outcomes from this consultation survey provide valuable insights into how DfID stakeholders prioritise research. The outcomes from this survey were reviewed alongside other elements of a wider DfID consultation process to help inform long-term research prioritisation of global health research. There are limitations in this approach; the opportunistic nature of the survey's dissemination means the findings presented may not be representative of the full range of stakeholders or views.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,971,910
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#256
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,271
of 310,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#11
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 310,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 70% of its contemporaries.