↓ Skip to main content

How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
110 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4896-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter van der Graaf, Lynne F. Forrest, Jean Adams, Janet Shucksmith, Martin White

Abstract

With increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research. This research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme(1) and the responsive research service AskFuse(2). We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified individuals who were eligible to make requests to the schemes but chose not to do so. In-depth interviews were conducted with six people in relation to the PHPES scheme, and 12 in relation to AskFuse. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Verification and extension of the findings were sought in a stakeholder workshop. PHPs recognised the importance of research findings for informing their practice. However, they identified three main barriers when trying to engage with researchers: 1) differences in timescales; 2) limited budgets; and 3) difficulties in identifying appropriate researchers. The two responsive schemes addressed some of these barriers, particularly finding the right researchers to work with and securing funding for local evaluations. The schemes also supported the development of new types of evidence. However, other barriers remained, such as differences in timescales and the resources needed to scale-up research. An increased mutual awareness of the structures and challenges under which PHPs and researchers work is required. Opportunities for frequent and meaningful engagement between PHPs and researchers can help to overcome additional barriers to co-production of evidence. Collaborative models, such as the use of researchers embedded in practice might facilitate this; however, flexible research funding schemes are needed to support these models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 14 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 3%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 21%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 25 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#674,166
of 25,402,528 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#676
of 17,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,223
of 445,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#15
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,528 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 445,724 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.