↓ Skip to main content

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2010
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
308 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 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
A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2010
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-8-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roderik F Viergever, Sylvie Olifson, Abdul Ghaffar, Robert F Terry

Abstract

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 2%
United States 5 1%
Canada 4 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 383 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 91 22%
Student > Master 79 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 12%
Other 32 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 5%
Other 91 22%
Unknown 53 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 31%
Social Sciences 79 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 14 3%
Other 76 18%
Unknown 74 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,846,407
of 25,138,857 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#221
of 1,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,883
of 193,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,138,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 193,608 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.