↓ Skip to main content

What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2018
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 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
What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0681-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Malthe Bach-Mortensen, Paul Montgomery

Abstract

The third sector is becoming a more common provider of social and health services, but little is known about how third sector organisations (TSOs) evaluate their activities. Past research has reported that the third sector is under increasing pressure to evaluate its impact and performance by government and other commissioning bodies. However, in responding to this increased pressure to undertake evaluation, research suggests that many TSOs struggle to evaluate their activities following the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP). Yet, there has been no systematic effort to investigate why the third sector is struggling to provide good quality evidence of its effects. This systematic review is reported following the PRISMA guidelines. Ten interdisciplinary databases were searched using a search string developed following best practice and in consultation with an information systems expert. Included studies were primary research of any research design investigating barriers to and facilitators of the evaluation process of TSOs as identified by practitioners. All studies were quality appraised, and the results were synthesised as a thematic summary. Twenty-four studies were included, which mainly investigated TSOs working within health and social services. The thematic summary identified the main barriers for TSOs to undertake evaluation to be related to the (1) lack of financial resources, (2) lack of technical capability and evaluation literacy and (3) challenges around identifying relevant evaluation systems and outcome indicators. Key facilitating factors involved (1) getting the appropriate support, (2) having an organisational culture that supports evaluation and (3) the motivation to be accountable to stakeholders. These findings were robust to study quality. This review constitutes the first systematic effort to synthesise existing literature on factors supporting and preventing evaluation by TSOs. The prevalence of factors revolving around the lack of support, resources and clarity on appropriate outcome indicators suggests that many of the identified challenges may be met by applying evidence-based and stakeholder-inclusive strategies to develop shared evaluation requirements. Future efforts should address the application of EBP as part of the commissioning process of TSOs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 196 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 16%
Student > Master 32 16%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Lecturer 9 5%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 56 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 29 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Arts and Humanities 7 4%
Other 41 21%
Unknown 61 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 22 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,135,294
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#152
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,272
of 452,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 452,910 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.