↓ Skip to main content

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2018
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 (#26 of 1,820)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
151 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
Title
Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C. Tricco, Wasifa Zarin, Patricia Rios, Vera Nincic, Paul A. Khan, Marco Ghassemi, Sanober Diaz, Ba’ Pham, Sharon E. Straus, Etienne V. Langlois

Abstract

It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted. After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 15%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Professor 11 5%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 57 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Social Sciences 35 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 78 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#440,091
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#26
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,725
of 456,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 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 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 456,599 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 53 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 98% of its contemporaries.