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 |
The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elie A. Akl, Racha Fadlallah, Lilian Ghandour, Ola Kdouh, Etienne Langlois, John N. Lavis, Holger Schünemann, Fadi El-Jardali |
| Abstract |
Groups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR. We developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user's needs. The purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules - the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions. We have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 121 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 26 | 21% |
| Canada | 12 | 10% |
| Lebanon | 8 | 7% |
| United States | 6 | 5% |
| Australia | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Ghana | 2 | 2% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 68 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 24 | 20% |
| Scientists | 23 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#618,759
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#33
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,755
of 324,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 324,716 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.