| Title |
Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-728 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Yost, Maureen Dobbins, Robyn Traynor, Kara DeCorby, Stephanie Workentine, Lori Greco |
| Abstract |
Public health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 9% |
| Australia | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| Colombia | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Brazil | 2 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 21% |
| Scientists | 4 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Malta | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 310 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 18% |
| Researcher | 48 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 77 | 24% |
| Unknown | 60 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 51 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 15% |
| Unknown | 79 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 16 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,303,909
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,462
of 16,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,666
of 235,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#37
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 235,575 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 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.