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 |
Usage of an online tool to help policymakers better engage with research: Web CIPHER
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0241-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steve R Makkar, Frances Gilham, Anna Williamson, Kellie Bisset |
| Abstract |
There is a need to develop innovations that help policymakers better engage with research in order to increase its use in policymaking. As part of the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (CIPHER), we established Web CIPHER, an online tool with dynamic interactive elements such as hot topics, research summaries, blogs from trusted figures in health policy and research, a community bulletin board, multimedia section and research portal. The aim of this study was to examine policymakers' use of the website, and determine which sections were key drivers of use. Google Analytics (GA) was used to gather usage data during a 16-month period. Analysis was restricted to Web CIPHER members from policy agencies. We examined descriptive statistics including mean viewing times, number of page visits and bounce rates for each section and performed analyses of variance to compare usage between sections. Repeated measures analyses were undertaken to examine whether a weekly reminder email improved usage of Web CIPHER, particularly for research-related content. During the measurement period, 223 policymakers from more than 32 organisations joined Web CIPHER. Users viewed eight posts on average per visit and stayed on the site for approximately 4 min. The bounce rate was less than 6%. The Blogs and Community sections received more unique views than all other sections. Blogs relating to improving policymakers' skills in applying research to policy were particularly popular. The email reminder had a positive effect on improving usage, particularly for research-related posts. The data indicated a relatively small number of users. However, this sample may not be representative of policymakers since membership to the site and usage was completely voluntarily. Nonetheless, those who used the site appeared to engage well with it. The findings suggest that providing blog-type content written by trusted experts in health policy and research as well as regular email reminders may provide an effective means of disseminating the latest research to policymakers through an online web portal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 4 | 25% |
| Australia | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 2 | 13% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 19% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,636,294
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#720
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,614
of 280,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 280,751 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 66% of its contemporaries.