↓ Skip to main content

Development of a framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Development of a framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0264-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chikondi Mwendera, Christiaan de Jager, Herbert Longwe, Charles Hongoro, Kamija Phiri, Clifford M. Mutero

Abstract

The existing gap between research evidence and public health practice has attributed to the unmet Millennium Development Goals in Africa and consequently, has stimulated the development of frameworks to enhance knowledge translation. These efforts aim at maximising health research utilisation in policy and practice to address the world's disease burdens, including malaria. This study aimed at developing a contextual framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi. The study used two approaches including: two case studies of policy analysis exploring the policy-making process in Malawi, utilisation of local malaria research, and the role of key stakeholders in policy formulation process; and the assessment of facilitating factors and barriers to malaria research utilisation for policy-making in Malawi. From the case studies' lessons and elements identified during the assessment of facilitating factors and barriers, a framework is developed to promote an integrated approach to knowledge translation. In this framework the Ministry of Health is considered as the main user of knowledge from research through the demand created by the research directorate and the National Malaria Control Programme. Key documents identified as being particularly relevant to the Ministry of Health for purposes of knowledge translation include the National Health Research Agenda, Guidelines for Policy Development and Analysis, and Guidelines for Evidence Use in Policy-making. Institutions conducting academic and policy-relevant malaria research in Malawi are identified and a consolidation of their linkages with the users of research is established through the Knowledge Translation Unit, the Evidence Informed decision-making Centre, and the African Institute for Development Policy. Equally, key players in this framework are the funding partners for both research and programmes that need to see accountability and impact of their support. Independent advisors, partners, and consultants also have their vital role in the process. The framework offers a practical basis for the factors identified and their linkages to promote a co-ordinated approach to malaria research utilisation in policy-making. Its applicability and success hinges on its wider dissemination and ownership by the government through the National Malaria Control Programme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 28 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,590,432
of 24,723,421 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#869
of 1,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,351
of 448,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,723,421 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 448,359 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.