↓ Skip to main content

Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0377-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard C. K. Choi, Liping Li, Yaogui Lu, Li R. Zhang, Yao Zhu, Anita W. P. Pak, Yue Chen, Julian Little

Abstract

Bridging the gap between science and policy is an important task in evidence-informed policy making. The objective of this study is to prioritize ways to bridge the gap. The study was based on an online survey of high-ranking scientists and policy makers who have a senior position in universities and governments in the health sector in China and Canada. The sampling frame comprised of universities with schools of public health and medicine and various levels of government in health and public health. Participants included university presidents and professors, and government deputy ministers, directors general and directors working in the health field. Fourteen strategies were presented to the participants for ranking as current ways and ideal ways in the future to bridge the gap between science and policy. Over a 3-month survey period, there were 121 participants in China and 86 in Canada with response rates of 30.0 and 15.9 %, respectively. The top strategies selected by respondents included focus on policy (conducting research that focuses on policy questions), science-policy forums, and policy briefs, both as current ways and ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy. Conferences were considered a priority strategy as a current way, but not an ideal way in the future. Canadian participants were more in favor of using information technology (web-based portals and email updates) than their Chinese counterparts. Among Canadian participants, two strategies that were ranked low as current ways (collaboration in study design and collaboration in analysis) became a priority as ideal ways. This could signal a change in thinking in shifting the focus from the "back end" or "downstream" (knowledge dissemination) of the knowledge transfer process to the "front end" or "upstream" (knowledge generation). Our international study has confirmed a number of previously reported priority strategies to bridge the gap between science and policy. More importantly, our study has contributed to the future work on evidence-based policy making by comparing the responses from China and Canada and the current and ideal way for the future. Our study shows that the concept and strategies of bridging the gap between science and policy are not static but varying in space and evolving over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 19 15%
Environmental Science 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 38 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,661,629
of 24,242,692 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,086
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,526
of 405,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#42
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,242,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 405,759 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.