↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge-exchange in the Pacific: outcomes of the TROPIC (translational research for obesity prevention in communities) project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Knowledge-exchange in the Pacific: outcomes of the TROPIC (translational research for obesity prevention in communities) project
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4254-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Kremer, Helen Mavoa, Gade Waqa, Marjory Moodie, Marita McCabe, Boyd Swinburn

Abstract

The Pacific TROPIC (Translational Research for Obesity Prevention in Communities) project aimed to design, implement and evaluate a knowledge-broking approach to evidence-informed policy making to address obesity in Fiji. This paper reports on the quantitative evaluation of the knowledge-broking intervention through assessment of participants' perceptions of evidence use and development of policy/advocacy briefs. Selected staff from six organizations - four government Ministries and two nongovernment organizations (NGOs) - participated in the project. The intervention comprised workshops and supported development of policy/advocacy briefs. Workshops addressed obesity and policy cycles and developing participants' skills in accessing, assessing, adapting and applying relevant evidence. A knowledge-broking team supported participants individually and/or in small groups to develop evidence-informed policy/advocacy briefs. A questionnaire survey that included workplace and demographic items and the self-assessment tool "Is Research Working for You?" (IRWFY) was administered pre- and post-intervention. Forty nine individuals (55% female, 69% 21-40 years, 69% middle-senior managers) participated in the study. The duration and level of participant engagement with the intervention activities varied - just over half participated for 10+ months, just under half attended most workshops and approximately one third produced one or more policy briefs. There were few reliable changes on the IRWFY scales following the intervention; while positive changes were found on several scales, these effects were small (d < .2) and only one individual scale (assess) was statistically significant (p < .05). Follow up (N = 1) analyses of individual-level change indicated that while 63% of participants reported increased research utilization post-intervention, this proportion was not different to chance levels. Similar analysis using scores aggregated by organization also revealed no organizational-level change post-intervention. This study empirically evaluated a knowledge-broking program that aimed to extend evidence-informed policy making skills and development of a suite of national policy briefs designed to increase the enactment of obesity-related policies. The findings failed to indicate reliable improvements in research utilization at either the individual or organizational level. Factors associated with fidelity and intervention dose as well as challenges related to organizational support and the measurement of research utilization, are discussed and recommendations for future research presented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Psychology 7 10%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,936
of 14,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,315
of 309,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#214
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 309,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.