↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing the use of research in health-promoting, anti-racism policy

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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 the use of research in health-promoting, anti-racism policy
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0223-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angeline S. Ferdinand, Yin Paradies, Margaret Kelaher

Abstract

The Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) programme was established to improve the health of ethnic minority communities through the reduction of racial discrimination. Local governments in the state of Victoria, Australia, were at the forefront of LEAD implementation in collaboration with leading state and national organisations. Key aims included expanding the available evidence regarding effective anti-racism interventions and facilitating the uptake of this evidence in organisational policies and practices. One rural and one metropolitan local government areas were selected to participate in LEAD. Key informant interviews and discussions were conducted with individuals who had participated in LEAD implementation and members of LEAD governance structures. Data were also collected on programme processes and implementation, partnership formation and organisational assessments. The LEAD model demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in terms of facilitating the use of evidence in a complex, community-based health promotion initiative. Representation of implementing, funding and advisory bodies at different levels of governance enabled the input of technical advice and guidance alongside design and implementation. The representation structure assisted in ensuring the development of a programme that was acceptable to all partners and informed by the best available evidence. Simultaneous evaluation also enhanced perceived validity of the intervention, allowed for strategy correction when necessary and supported the process of double-loop organisational learning. However, due to the model's demand for simultaneous and intensive effort by various organisations, when particular elements of the intervention were not functional, there was a considerable loss of time and resources across the partner organisations. The complexity of the model also presented a challenge in ensuring clarity regarding roles, functions and the direction of the programme. The example of LEAD provides guidance on mechanisms to strengthen the entry of evidence into complex community-based health promotion programmes. The paper highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of the LEAD model and implications for practical collaboration between policymakers, implementers and researchers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Social Sciences 12 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 21 29%
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,137,447
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,149
of 1,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,133
of 313,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#29
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 313,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.