↓ Skip to main content

Development of training for medicines-oriented policymakers to apply evidence

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Development of training for medicines-oriented policymakers to apply evidence
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0130-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. L. Colquhoun, E. Helis, D. Lowe, D. Belanger, S. Hill, A. Mayhew, M. Taylor, J. M. Grimshaw

Abstract

Health systems globally promote appropriate prescribing by healthcare providers and safe and effective medicine use by consumers. Rx for Change, a publicly available database, provides access to systematic reviews regarding best practices for prescribing and using medicines. Despite the value of the database for improving prescribing and medicine use, its use remains suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a training program for five medicine-focused organisations in Canada and Australia to facilitate the use and understanding of the Rx for Change database. Four steps were undertaken: 1) key informant interviews were completed across all organisations to understand the knowledge user perspective; 2) a directed content analysis was completed of the interview transcripts and proposed training was developed; 3) a second round of feedback on the proposed training by knowledge users was gathered; and 4) feedback was integrated to develop the final training. Sixteen key informant interviews with knowledge users were conducted. Themes for training content included the scope of, navigation and strategies for using Rx for Change (generic content) and practical examples on incorporating evidence within their workplace context (tailored content). The final training consisted of an informational video, a 60-minute face-to-face workshop and two post-training reminders. A method of engaging knowledge users in the development of a training program to improve the use of an on-line database of systematic reviews was established and used to design training. Next steps include the delivery and evaluation of the training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Librarian 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Psychology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,161,914
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,072
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,407
of 367,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 367,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.