↓ Skip to main content

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 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
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s14
Pubmed ID
Authors

John N Lavis, Jennifer A Boyko, Andrew D Oxman, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 8 3%
Netherlands 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 292 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 56 18%
Student > Master 54 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 17%
Other 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 62 19%
Unknown 53 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 29%
Social Sciences 56 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 9%
Psychology 10 3%
Computer Science 9 3%
Other 50 16%
Unknown 72 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,171,297
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#582
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,630
of 163,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 163,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.