↓ Skip to main content

Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0323-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Tudisca, Adriana Valente, Tommaso Castellani, Timo Stahl, Petru Sandu, Diana Dulf, Hilde Spitters, Ien Van de Goor, Christina Radl-Karimi, Mohamed Ahmed Syed, Natasa Loncarevic, Cathrine Juel Lau, Susan Roelofs, Maja Bertram, Nancy Edwards, Arja R. Aro, on behalf of the REPOPA Consortium

Abstract

Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 38 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,918,247
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#263
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,247
of 331,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 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 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 331,171 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.