↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of the translation and impact from a childhood obesity trial programme: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Measurement of the translation and impact from a childhood obesity trial programme: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0266-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Penny Reeves, Simon Deeming, Shanthi Ramanathan, John Wiggers, Luke Wolfenden, Andrew Searles

Abstract

There is growing recognition amongst health and medical research funders and researchers that translation of research into policy and practice needs to increase and that more transparency is needed on how impacts are realised. Several approaches are advocated for achieving this, including co-production of research or academic-practitioner research. The Population Health Unit (PHU) within the Hunter New England Local Health District in regional Australia, as an early adopter of this model, has been working to increase the likelihood that its research is translated into community health benefits. With the New South Wales Ministry of Health, the PHU responded to the burden of child overweight and obesity by combining service delivery with research expertise. The 'Good for Kids, Good for Life' (Good for Kids) dissemination trial was developed and implemented in seven community settings in the Hunter region of Australia between 2006 and 2010. This study aims to undertake a retrospective impact assessment to measure the research translation and impact of Good for Kids. The method will be based upon the application of the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT), comprising three core elements, namely quantified metrics, economic assessment and a narrative of the process by which the research in question translates and generates impact. Increasingly, funders are interested both in the outcomes resulting from investments in health research and in the expected return on their investments. FAIT was developed specifically for this purpose and its use is anticipated to provide transparency to the pathway to translation and potentially drive increased investment in translational research programmes such as Good for Kids.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Engineering 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,303,730
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#748
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,565
of 440,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 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 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 440,391 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.