↓ Skip to main content

Looking both ways: a review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, June 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Looking both ways: a review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0310-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robyn Newson, Lesley King, Lucie Rychetnik, Andrew Milat, Adrian Bauman

Abstract

Measuring the policy and practice impacts of research is becoming increasingly important. Policy impacts can be measured from two directions - tracing forward from research and tracing backwards from a policy outcome. In this review, we compare these approaches and document the characteristics of studies assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research. Keyword searches of electronic databases were conducted in December 2016. Included studies were published between 1995 and 2016 in English and reported methods and findings of studies measuring policy impacts of specified health research, or research use in relation to a specified health policy outcome, and reviews reporting methods of research impact assessment. Using an iterative data extraction process, we developed a framework to define the key elements of empirical studies (assessment reason, assessment direction, assessment starting point, unit of analysis, assessment methods, assessment endpoint and outcomes assessed) and then documented the characteristics of included empirical studies according to this framework. We identified 144 empirical studies and 19 literature reviews. Empirical studies were derived from two parallel streams of research of equal size, which we termed 'research impact assessments' and 'research use assessments'. Both streams provided insights about the influence of research on policy and utilised similar assessment methods, but approached measurement from opposite directions. Research impact assessments predominantly utilised forward tracing approaches while the converse was true for research use assessments. Within each stream, assessments focussed on narrow or broader research/policy units of analysis as the starting point for assessment, each with associated strengths and limitations. The two streams differed in terms of their relative focus on the contributions made by specific research (research impact assessments) versus research more generally (research use assessments) and the emphasis placed on research and the activities of researchers in comparison to other factors and actors as influencers of change. The Framework presented in this paper provides a mechanism for comparing studies within this broad field of research enquiry. Forward and backward tracing approaches, and their different ways of 'looking', tell a different story of research-based policy change. Combining approaches may provide the best way forward in terms of linking outcomes to specific research, as well as providing a realistic picture of research influence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Student > Master 10 8%
Librarian 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 33 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 38 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,551,297
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#154
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,116
of 336,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#14
of 40 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 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 336,181 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 67% of its contemporaries.