↓ Skip to main content

Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2012
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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
Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leslea Peirson, Donna Ciliska, Maureen Dobbins, David Mowat

Abstract

Core competencies for public health in Canada require proficiency in evidence informed decision making (EIDM). However, decision makers often lack access to information, many workers lack knowledge and skills to conduct systematic literature reviews, and public health settings typically lack infrastructure to support EIDM activities. This research was conducted to explore and describe critical factors and dynamics in the early implementation of one public health unit's strategic initiative to develop capacity to make EIDM standard practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Canada 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 216 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 18%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Other 16 7%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 20 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 67 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 22 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 8%
Psychology 13 6%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 29 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,278,847
of 19,998,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,376
of 13,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,516
of 136,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,998,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 136,504 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them