↓ Skip to main content

Teasing apart “the tangled web” of influence of policy dialogues: lessons from a case study of dialogues about healthcare reform options for Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Teasing apart “the tangled web” of influence of policy dialogues: lessons from a case study of dialogues about healthcare reform options for Canada
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0627-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gillian Mulvale, Samantha A. McRae, Sandra Milicic

Abstract

The knowledge exchange literature suggests that policy dialogues are intended to enhance short-, medium- and long-term capacities of individuals, organizations and health systems to use evidence to inform policy-making. Key features of effective dialogues have been suggested, but the linkages between these features and the realization of improved capacities for evidence-informed policy-making among dialogue attendees and the subsequent influence on policy-making activities are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative case study of a series of four policy dialogues that were convened in Canada among national, provincial and regional stakeholders on topics pertaining to healthcare financing and funding in 2011. Data sources included videos of participant perspectives captured during or immediately following each event and follow-up key informant interviews among dialogue participants held 4 years later in 2015. Three conceptual frameworks pertaining to (i) policy dialogues and capacities for evidence use, (ii) factors shaping policy-making across the policy cycle and (iii) factors shaping implementation of evidence guided the thematic analysis. We then synthesized the findings across the three frameworks. The results suggest the potential benefits of policy dialogues described in the literature were developed among the participants at these dialogues. Informants elaborated on how dialogue features influenced their capacities to use evidence, the ideas, interests and institutions during the agenda-setting and policy formulation stages of policy-making and how implementation was affected by characteristics of policy options, individuals, organizations, the external environment and processes. We present a conceptual framework that furthers our understanding of the potential influence of policy dialogues on the content and mechanisms of policy development and illustrate pathways of influence on various stages of the policy cycle from agenda setting through formulation and implementation. The framework highlights important factors for consideration in designing and evaluating policy dialogues and in supporting post-dialogue knowledge exchange efforts.

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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Social Sciences 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,144,104
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,153
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,463
of 322,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#37
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 322,522 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.