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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea C. Tricco, Roberta Cardoso, Sonia M. Thomas, Sanober Motiwala, Shannon Sullivan, Michael R. Kealey, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Mathieu Ouimet, Michael P. Hillmer, Laure Perrier, Sasha Shepperd, Sharon E. Straus |
| Abstract |
We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake. We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians. We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake. Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 22% |
| Canada | 12 | 13% |
| United States | 9 | 10% |
| Australia | 6 | 7% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 52% |
| Scientists | 24 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 270 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Professor | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 65 | 23% |
| Unknown | 54 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 42 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 14% |
| Psychology | 11 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 51 | 18% |
| Unknown | 71 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#554,220
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#41
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,623
of 403,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 403,726 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.