↓ Skip to main content

Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1581-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline Zardo, Alex Collie

Abstract

There is a growing demand for researchers to document the impact of research to demonstrate how it contributes to community outcomes. In the area of public health it is expected that increases in the use of research to inform policy and program development will lead to improved public health outcomes. To determine whether research has an impact on public health outcomes, we first need to assess to what extent research has been used and how it has been used. However, there are relatively few studies to date that have quantitatively measured the extent and purpose of use of research in public health policy environments. This study sought to quantitatively measure the frequency and purpose of use of research evidence in comparison to use of other information types in a specific public health policy environment, workplace and transport injury prevention and rehabilitation compensation. A survey was developed to measure the type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform policy and program decision-making. Research evidence was the type of information used least frequently and internal data and reports was the information type used most frequently. Findings also revealed differences in use of research between and within the two government public health agencies studied. In particular the main focus of participants' day-to-day role was associated with the type of information used. Research was used mostly for conceptual purposes. Interestingly, research was used for instrumental purposes more often than it was used for symbolic purposes, which is contrary to findings of previous research. These results have implications for the design and implementation of research translation interventions in the context within which the study was undertaken. In particular, they suggest that intervention will need to be targeted to the information needs of the different role groups within an organisation. The results can also be utilised as a baseline measure for intervention evaluations and assessments of research impact in this context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,252,796
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,564
of 14,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,863
of 264,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#48
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 264,480 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 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.