↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation as evolution: a Darwinian proposal for health policy and systems research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Evaluation as evolution: a Darwinian proposal for health policy and systems research
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0007-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra L Martiniuk, Seye Abimbola, Merrick Zwarenstein

Abstract

Health systems are complex and health policies are political. While grand policies are set by politicians, the detailed implementation strategies which influence the shape and impact of these policies are delegated to technical personnel. This is an underappreciated opportunity for optimising health systems. We propose that selective 'breeding' through successive evaluations of and selection among implementation strategies is a metaphor that health system thinkers can use to improve health care. Similar to Darwinian evolution, the acceptance and accumulation of successful choices and the detection and discarding of unsuccessful ones would improve health systems in small and uncontroversial ways, over time. The effects of better implementation choices would be synergistic and cumulative, accumulating large impact (and lessons) from small changes. Just as with evolution of species, this means that even slight improvements over usual outcomes makes these numerous small choices as important a focus for system improvement as the overarching policy itself. Several alternative implementation approaches can be compared under real-world conditions in prospective head-to-head experimental and non-experimental explorations to understand whether and to what extent a strategy works and what works for whom, how, and under what circumstances in different locations. As in breeding or evolution, the best variants would spread to become the new, proven superior, implementation strategies for that policy in those settings. Evolution does not produce a new species whole, in a single transaction. Instead it gathers new parts and powers over time as different combinations are tested through competition with one another, to survive and spread or become extinct. Without necessarily changing or challenging grand policies, extending this idea to health systems innovation can facilitate thinking around how local, small - but cumulative - improvements in implementation potentially contribute to a pattern of successive adaptation spreading within its viable niche and ultimately providing locally-derived, long-term improvements in health systems.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 22 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,048,346
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#277
of 1,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,764
of 260,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 260,281 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.