↓ Skip to main content

A review of the process of knowledge transfer and use of evidence in reproductive and child health in Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
A review of the process of knowledge transfer and use of evidence in reproductive and child health in Ghana
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0350-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon Abekah-Nkrumah, Sombié Issiaka, Lokossou Virgil, Johnson Ermel

Abstract

The paper carries out a situational analysis to examine the production, dissemination and utilisation of reproductive and child health-related evidence to inform policy formulation in Ghana's health sector. The study used Wald's model of knowledge production, transfer and utilisation as a conceptual model to collect relevant data via interviews and administration of questionnaire to a network of persons who either previously or currently hold policy-relevant positions in Ghana's health sector. Additional data was also gathered through a scoping review of the knowledge transfer and research utilisation literature, existing reproductive and child health policies, protocols and guidelines and information available on the websites of relevant institutions in Ghana's health sector. The findings of the study suggest that the health sector in Ghana has major strengths (strong knowledge production capacity, a positive environment for the promotion of evidence-informed policy) and opportunities (access to major donors who have the resources to fund good quality research and access to both local and international networks for collaborative research). What remains a challenge, however, is the absence of a robust institutional-wide mechanism for collating research needs and communicating these to researchers, communicating research findings in forms that are friendlier to policy-makers and the inability to incorporate funding for research into the budget of the health sector. The study concludes, admonishing the Ministry of Health and its agencies to leverage on the existing strengths and opportunities to address the identified challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Lecturer 8 4%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 84 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Engineering 6 3%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 87 43%
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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#12,810,894
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#917
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,470
of 331,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#41
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 331,034 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.