↓ Skip to main content

Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
31 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley Wye, Emer Brangan, Ailsa Cameron, John Gabbay, Jonathan H. Klein, Catherine Pope

Abstract

Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt 'evidence-based policy-making', with 'evidence' defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners' information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions. In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison. The 'art of commissioning' entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. 'Evidence-based policy-making' usually meant pragmatic selection of 'evidence' such as best practice guidance, clinicians' and users' views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research. Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information. To influence policymakers' decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers' priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 15 12%
Other 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 31 25%
Unknown 12 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Social Sciences 29 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 01 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,483,775
of 22,410,616 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#501
of 7,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,611
of 266,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,410,616 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 7,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 266,918 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them