↓ Skip to main content

Exploring evidence-policy linkages in health research plans: A case study from six countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Exploring evidence-policy linkages in health research plans: A case study from six countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2008
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-6-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shamsuzzoha B Syed, Adnan A Hyder, Gerald Bloom, Sandhya Sundaram, Abbas Bhuiya, Zhang Zhenzhong, Barun Kanjilal, Oladimeji Oladepo, George Pariyo, David H Peters, Future Health Systems: Innovation for Equity

Abstract

The complex evidence-policy interface in low and middle income country settings is receiving increasing attention. Future Health Systems (FHS): Innovations for Equity, is a research consortium conducting health systems explorations in six Asian and African countries: Bangladesh, India, China, Afghanistan, Uganda, and Nigeria. The cross-country research consortium provides a unique opportunity to explore the research-policy interface. Three key activities were undertaken during the initial phase of this five-year project. First, key considerations in strengthening evidence-policy linkages in health system research were developed by FHS researchers through workshops and electronic communications. Four key considerations in strengthening evidence-policy linkages are postulated: development context; research characteristics; decision-making processes; and stakeholder engagement. Second, these four considerations were applied to research proposals in each of the six countries to highlight features in the research plans that potentially strengthen the research-policy interface and opportunities for improvement. Finally, the utility of the approach for setting research priorities in health policy and systems research was reflected upon. These three activities yielded interesting findings. First, developmental consideration with four dimensions - poverty, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and health shocks - provides an entry point in examining research-policy interfaces in the six settings. Second, research plans focused upon on the ground realities in specific countries strengthens the interface. Third, focusing on research prioritized by decision-makers, within a politicized health arena, enhances chances of research influencing action. Lastly, early and continued engagement of multiple stakeholders, from local to national levels, is conducive to enhanced communication at the interface. The approach described has four main utilities: first, systematic analyses of research proposals using key considerations ensure such issues are incorporated into research proposals; second, the exact meaning, significance, and inter-relatedness of these considerations can be explored within the research itself; third, cross-country learning can be enhanced; and finally, translation of evidence into action may be facilitated. Health systems research proposals in low and middle income countries should include reflection on transferring research findings into policy. Such deliberations may be informed by employing the four key considerations suggested in this paper in analyzing research proposals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Uganda 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 117 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Student > Master 16 13%
Other 6 5%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 30%
Social Sciences 34 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 13 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,932,629
of 23,671,454 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#640
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,106
of 81,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,671,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,244 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 81,525 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them