↓ Skip to main content

Research dissemination workshops: observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, June 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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Research dissemination workshops: observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0205-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux, Christian Dagenais, Paul-André Somé, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

In Burkina Faso, malaria remains the primary cause of healthcare use, morbidity and child mortality. Therefore, efforts are needed to support the knowledge transfer and application of the results of numerous studies to better formulate and implement programs in the fight against the malaria pandemic. To this end, a 2-day dissemination workshop was held to share the most recent results produced by a multidisciplinary research team. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the workshop and the policy briefs distributed there, the effects these produced on research results use and the processes that facilitated, or not, the application of the knowledge transmitted. A mixed-methods design was used. The data were drawn from a quantitative evaluation questionnaire completed after the workshop (n = 25/31) and qualitative interviews conducted with the researchers and various actors who attended the workshop (n = 11) and with participants in working groups (n = 40) that later analysed the policy briefs distributed at the workshop. The participants recognised the quality of the research results presented, but felt that more needed to be done to adapt the researchers' language and improve the functioning of the workshop. The potential effects of the workshop were rather limited. Effects were mainly at two levels: individual (e.g. acquisition of new knowledge, personal awareness raising) and local (e.g. change of practice in a local non-governmental organisation). Most participants perceived the utility of the research results, but several reported that their narrow decisional power limited their ability to apply this knowledge. This study showed the importance of workshops to inform key actors of research results and the need to undertake several different activities to increase the chances that the knowledge will be applied. Several recommendations are proposed to improve knowledge translation approaches in the West African context, including organising working and discussion groups, developing an action plan at the end of the workshop and offering support to participants after the workshop, among others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,148,241
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#481
of 1,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,196
of 317,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 317,446 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 61% of its contemporaries.