↓ Skip to main content

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 1,397)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
113 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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 can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0277-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abby Haynes, Samantha J. Rowbotham, Sally Redman, Sue Brennan, Anna Williamson, Gabriel Moore

Abstract

Health policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research in their work? Articles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999-2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites. We found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed. This exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 195 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Master 25 13%
Other 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 48 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 44 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 60 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#572,125
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#29
of 1,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,960
of 343,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 343,739 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.