↓ Skip to main content

Health systems research for policy change: lessons from the implementation of rapid assessment protocols for diabetes in low- and middle-income settings

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Health systems research for policy change: lessons from the implementation of rapid assessment protocols for diabetes in low- and middle-income settings
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0029-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Beran, J. Jaime Miranda, Maria Kathia Cardenas, Maryam Bigdeli

Abstract

As many challenges exist for access to diabetes care in developing countries, the International Insulin Foundation developed a Rapid Assessment tool and implemented this approach to identify barriers to care and propose concrete recommendations for decision makers. The objective of this paper is to identify the factors that contributed to informing and influencing policymakers with regards to this work. A documentary review comprised Stage 1. Stage 2 used an online questionnaire to gain insight from users of the Rapid Assessment results. Based on Stages 1 and 2, Stage 3 comprised in-depth interviews with a total of nine individuals (one individual each from the six participating countries; two individuals from the World Health Organization; one "Global Diabetes Advocate"). Interviews were analyzed based on a list of themes developed from Stage 2. Stage 1 led to the identification of various types of documents referring to the results. The online questionnaire had a response rate of 33%. Respondents directly involved in the assessment had a "Good" or "Very Good" appreciation of most aspects and scored these higher than those not directly involved. From the interviews, formalized methods and close collaboration between the international team and local partners were strengths. Trust and a relationship with local partners were also seen as assets. All stakeholders valued the results and the credibility of the data generated. Local partners felt that more could have been done for dissemination. This study shows the importance of specific results from the different assessments. In addressing complex issues having external experts involved was seen as an advantage. The uptake of results was due to the credibility of the research which was influenced by a mix of the people involved, past assessments, trusted local partners, and the use of the results by knowledge brokers, such as the World Health Organization. Through these brokers, others gained ownership of the data. The methods used and the fact that this data was grounded in a local context also reinforced its value. Despite limitations, this study offers a unique perspective where a similar research approach was taken in six countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 44 35%
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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#13,214,454
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#940
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,029
of 274,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 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 274,923 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.