↓ Skip to main content

UK research funding bodies’ views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2014
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
UK research funding bodies’ views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer E van Bekkum, Shona Hilton

Abstract

A challenge facing science is how to renew and improve its relationship with society. One potential solution is to ensure that the public are more involved in the scientific process from the inception of research plans to scientific dissemination strategies. However, to date, little is known about how research funding bodies view public participation in research funding decisions, and how they involve the public into their strategies and practices. This paper provides insights into how key representatives working in the UK non-commercial research funding sector perceive public participation in health-related research funding decisions and the possible implications of these.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,833,048
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,691
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,022
of 231,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#22
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 231,387 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.