↓ Skip to main content

What research tells us about knowledge transfer strategies to improve public health in low-income countries: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
What research tells us about knowledge transfer strategies to improve public health in low-income countries: a scoping review
Published in
International Journal of Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00038-015-0716-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphanie Siron, Christian Dagenais, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

This study describes the current state of research on knowledge transfer strategies to improve public health in low-income countries, to identify the knowledge gaps on this topic. In this scoping review, a descriptive and systematic process was used to analyse, for each article retained, descriptions of research context and methods, types of knowledge transfer activities and results reported. 28 articles were analysed. They dealt with the evaluation of transfer strategies that employed multiple activities, mostly targeting health professionals and women with very young children. Most often these studies used quantitative designs and measurements of instrumental use with some methodological shortcomings. Results were positive and suggested recommendations for improving professional practices, knowledge and health-related behaviours. The review highlights the great diversity of transfer strategies used, strategies and many conditions for knowledge use. The review provides specific elements for understanding the transfer processes in low-income countries and highlights the need for systematic evaluation of the conditions for research results utilization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Rwanda 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,365,490
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#258
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,219
of 277,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 277,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.