↓ Skip to main content

The roles and influence of actors in the uptake of evidence: the case of malaria treatment policy change in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
The roles and influence of actors in the uptake of evidence: the case of malaria treatment policy change in Uganda
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0150-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet Nabyonga-Orem, Miriam Nanyunja, Bruno Marchal, Bart Criel, Freddie Ssengooba

Abstract

Uganda changed its malaria treatment policy in response to evidence of resistance to commonly used antimalarials. The use of evidence in policy development--also referred to as knowledge translation (KT)--is crucial, especially in resource-limited settings. However, KT processes occur amidst a complex web of stakeholder interactions. Stakeholder involvement in evidence generation and in KT activities is essential. In the present study, we explored how stakeholders impacted the uptake of evidence in the malaria treatment policy change in Uganda.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 25%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 21%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Engineering 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 18 17%

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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#5,773,491
of 21,321,698 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,043
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,070
of 226,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,698 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 226,395 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.