↓ Skip to main content

Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
87 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0080-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne V. Langlois, Michael K. Ranson, Till Bärnighausen, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch, Karen Daniels, Fadi El-Jardali, Abdul Ghaffar, Jeremy Grimshaw, Andy Haines, John N. Lavis, Simon Lewin, Qingyue Meng, Sandy Oliver, Tomás Pantoja, Sharon Straus, Ian Shemilt, David Tovey, Peter Tugwell, Hugh Waddington, Mark Wilson, Beibei Yuan, John-Arne Røttingen

Abstract

Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 143 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 21%
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 28%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 33 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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
#777,848
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#99
of 2,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,005
of 269,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 27 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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,218 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 269,400 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.