| Title |
National health policy-makers’ views on the clarity and utility of Countdown to 2015 country profiles and reports: findings from two exploratory qualitative studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-12-40 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin M Hunter, Jennifer H Requejo, Ian Pope, Bernadette Daelmans, Susan F Murray |
| Abstract |
The use of sets of indicators to assess progress has become commonplace in the global health arena. Exploratory research has suggested that indicators used for global monitoring purposes can play a role in national policy-making, however, the mechanisms through which this occurs are poorly understood. This article reports findings from two qualitative studies that aimed to explore national policy-makers' interpretation and use of indicators from country profiles and reports developed by Countdown to 2015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 August 2014.
All research outputs
#7,152,448
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#847
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,994
of 237,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 237,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.