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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-018-0293-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriel Moore, Sally Redman, Sian Rudge, Abby Haynes |
| Abstract |
Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers. This study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies. Overall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment. This study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 6 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 15% |
| Australia | 5 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 60% |
| Scientists | 12 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,252,705
of 24,631,014 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#118
of 1,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,128
of 334,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,631,014 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 334,960 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.