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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-i1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John N Lavis, Andrew D Oxman, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim |
| Abstract |
This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 2% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 296 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 65 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 13% |
| Other | 21 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 69 | 21% |
| Unknown | 57 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 56 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 47 | 15% |
| Unknown | 68 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,000,908
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#435
of 1,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,559
of 168,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,247 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 168,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.