| Title |
Participants’ perceptions of a knowledge-brokering strategy to facilitate evidence-informed policy-making in Fiji
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-725 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gade Waqa, Helen Mavoa, Wendy Snowdon, Marj Moodie, Rigieta Nadakuitavuki, Marita Mc Cabe, Boyd Swinburn |
| Abstract |
Evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) is optimal when evidence-producers (researchers) and policy developers work collaboratively to ensure the production and use of the best available evidence. This paper examined participants' perceptions of knowledge-brokering strategies used in the TROPIC (Translational Research in Obesity Prevention in Communities) project to facilitate the use of obesity-related evidence in policy development in Fiji. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Librarian | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2013.
All research outputs
#15,276,424
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,282
of 14,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,876
of 197,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#207
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 197,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.