↓ Skip to main content

Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 1,388)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
126 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 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
Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maarten Olivier Kok, John Owusu Gyapong, Ivan Wolffers, David Ofori-Adjei, Joost Ruitenberg

Abstract

While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results. Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research. The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations. Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 203 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 40 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 19%
Social Sciences 39 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 56 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#423,393
of 25,396,120 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#17
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,187
of 342,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,396,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 342,281 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 24 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 95% of its contemporaries.