↓ Skip to main content

Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis

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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0126-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica C Shearer, Michelle Dion, John N Lavis

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-informed health policymaking is a goal of equitable and effective health systems but occurs infrequently in reality. Past research points to the facilitating role of interpersonal relationships between policy-makers and researchers, imploring the adoption of a social network lens. This study aims to identify network-level factors associated with the exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking.MethodsData on social networks and research use were collected from seventy policy actors across three health policy cases in Burkina Faso (child health, malaria, and HIV). Networks were graphed for actors¿ interactions, their provision of, and request for research evidence. Exponential random graph models estimated the probability of evidence provision and request between actors, controlling for network- and individual-level covariates. Logistic regression models estimated actors¿ use of research evidence to inform policy.ResultsNetwork structure explained more than half of the evidence exchanges (ties) observed in these networks. Across all cases, a pair of actors was more likely to form a provision tie if they already had a request tie between them and visa versa (¿¿=¿6.16, p¿<¿0.05; ¿¿=¿2.87, p¿<¿0.05; ¿¿=¿2.31, p¿<¿0.05). The child health network displayed clustering tendencies, meaning that actors were more likely to form ties if they shared an acquaintance (¿¿=¿2.36, p¿<¿0.05). Actors¿ use of research evidence was positively associated with their centrality (i.e., connectedness).ConclusionsThe exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking can be partly explained by the structure of actors¿ networks of relationships. Efforts to support knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking should consider network factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 38 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 30 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,510,426
of 22,053,897 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#328
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,448
of 253,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#21
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,053,897 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 253,286 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.