↓ Skip to main content

A cross-sectional survey of supports for evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare organisations: a research protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A cross-sectional survey of supports for evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare organisations: a research protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0146-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathieu Ouimet, John N Lavis, Grégory Léon, Moriah E Ellen, Pierre-Olivier Bédard, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Abstract

BackgroundThis protocol builds on the development of a) a framework that identified the various supports (i.e. positions, activities, interventions) that a healthcare organisation or health system can implement for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) and b) a qualitative study that showed the current mix of supports that some Canadian healthcare organisations have in place and the ones that are perceived to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision-making. Based on these findings, we developed a web survey to collect cross-sectional data about the specific supports that regional health authorities and hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have in place to facilitate EIDM.Methods/designThis paper describes the methods for a cross-sectional web survey among 32 regional health authorities and 253 hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to collect data on the current mix of organisational supports that these organisations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. The data will be obtained through a two-step survey design: a 10-min survey among CEOs to identify key units and individuals in regard to our objectives (step 1) and a 20-min survey among managers of the key units identified in step 1 to collect information about the activities performed by their unit regarding the acquisition, assessment, adaptation and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making (step 2). The study will target three types of informants: CEOs, library/documentation centre managers and all other key managers whose unit is involved in the acquisition, assessment, adaptation/packaging and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making. We developed an innovative data collection system to increase the likelihood that only the best-informed respondent available answers each survey question. The reporting of the results will be done using descriptive statistics of supports by organisation type and by province.DiscussionThis study will be the first to collect and report large-scale cross-sectional data on the current mix of supports health system organisations in the two most populous Canadian provinces have in place for evidence-informed decision-making. The study will also provide useful information to researchers on how to collect organisation-level data with reduced risk of self-reporting bias.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#4,479,764
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#821
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,203
of 262,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 262,467 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.