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 |
A national public health programme on gambling policy development in New Zealand: insights from a process evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12954-018-0217-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Komathi Kolandai-Matchett, Jason Landon, Maria Bellringer, Max Abbott |
| Abstract |
In New Zealand, a public health programme on gambling policy development is part of a national gambling harm reduction and prevention strategy mandated by the Gambling Act 2003. Funded by the Ministry of Health, the programme directs workplace/organisational gambling policies, non-gambling fundraising policies, and local council policies on electronic gaming machines (EGMs). We carried out a process evaluation of this programme to identify practical information (e.g. advocacy approaches; challenges and ameliorating strategies) that can be used by programme planners and implementers to reinforce programme effectiveness and serve to guide similar policy-focused public health initiatives elsewhere. Evaluation criteria, based on the programme's official service specifications, guided our evaluation questions, analysis and reporting. To identify informative aspects of programme delivery, we thematically analysed over 100 six-monthly implementer progress reports (representing 3 years of programme delivery) and transcript of a focus group with public health staff. Identified output-related themes included purposeful awareness raising to build understanding about gambling harms and the need for harm-reduction policies and stakeholder relationship development. Outcome-related themes included enhanced community awareness about gambling harms, community involvement in policy development, some workplace/organisational policy development, and some influences on council EGM policies. Non-gambling fundraising policy development was not common. The programme offers an unprecedented gambling harm reduction approach. Although complex (due to its three distinct policy focus areas targeting different sectors) and challenging (due to the extensive time and resources needed to develop relationships and overcome counteractive views), the programme resulted in some policy development. Encouraging workplace/organisational policy development requires increased awareness of costs to employers and society and appreciation of policy value. Although encouraging non-gambling fundraising policies will likely remain challenging, public debate on ethical aspects could stimulate policy consideration. Influencing council EGM policy decisions will remain important for minimising EGM accessibility among vulnerable communities. Public involvement in EGM policy decisions has strong implications for policy effectiveness. Given the expanding range of gambling activities (including online gambling) presently accessible to communities worldwide, both organisational and public policies (as advocated through the programme) are needed to minimise gambling harms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Librarian | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 16 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,091,104
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#505
of 971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,154
of 333,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 333,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.