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 |
Developing and refining the methods for a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-13-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John N Lavis, Michael G Wilson, Kaelan A Moat, Amanda C Hammill, Jennifer A Boyko, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Signe Flottorp |
| Abstract |
Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 17% |
| South Africa | 3 | 10% |
| Spain | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 7% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 3% |
| Nepal | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 62% |
| Scientists | 5 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,912,521
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#233
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,294
of 262,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 262,079 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 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.