↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of research findings for health policy making and practice: evidence from three case studies in Bangladesh

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Utilization of research findings for health policy making and practice: evidence from three case studies in Bangladesh
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0015-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Roger Walugembe, Suzanne N. Kiwanuka, Joseph K. B. Matovu, Elizeus Rutebemberwa, Laura Reichenbach

Abstract

In striving to contribute towards improved health outcomes, health research institutions generate and accumulate huge volumes of relevant but often underutilized data. This study explores activities undertaken by researchers from the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), an international research institution that promotes the utilization of their findings in the policymaking processes in Bangladesh. The study used an exploratory case study design and employed qualitative methods to explore activities implemented to promote research utilization and the extent to which researchers felt that their findings contributed to the policymaking process. Data were collected between September and December 2011 through key informant interviews, focus group discussions with study investigators, and database and document reviews. We reviewed findings from 19 reproductive health studies conducted and completed by icddr,b researchers between 2001 and 2011. We interviewed 21 key informants, including 13 researchers, two policy makers, and six programme implementers. Data were entered into Microsoft Word and analyzed manually following a thematic framework approach. Following the World Health Organization/Turning Research into Practice (WHO/TRIP) framework, three case studies of how research findings were utilized in the policymaking processes in Bangladesh were documented. Activities implemented to promote research utilization included conducting dissemination workshops, publishing scientific papers, developing policy briefs, providing technical assistance to policymakers and programme implementers, holding one-on-one meetings, and joining advocacy networks. The majority of the researchers (12 of 13) reported that their study findings were utilized to influence policymaking processes at different levels. However, some researchers reported being unaware of whether and how their findings were utilized. As regards actual utilization of research findings, the evidence from the three case studies indicate that research findings can be utilized instrumentally, conceptually and symbolically, and at different stages within the policymaking process, including agenda setting and policy formulation and implementation. The results show that research findings from icddr,b were promoted and utilized in health policymaking processes in Bangladesh using a variety of utilization approaches. These results suggest a need for using multiple approaches to promote utilization of research findings in health policymaking processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Other 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Social Sciences 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 20 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,141,990
of 24,180,797 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,004
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,367
of 270,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,180,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.