↓ Skip to main content

Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide)

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide)
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0344-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Walley, Mohammad Amir Khan, Sophie Witter, Rumana Haque, James Newell, Xiaolin Wei

Abstract

In a world of changing disease burdens, poor quality care and constrained health budgets, finding effective approaches to developing and implementing evidence-based health services is crucial. Much has been published on developing service tools and protocols, operational research and getting policy into practice but these are often undertaken in isolation from one another. This paper, based on 25 years of experience in a range of low and middle income contexts as well as wider literature, presents a systematic approach to connecting these activities in an embedded development and research approach. This approach can circumvent common problems such as lack of local ownership of new programmes, unrealistic resource requirements and poor implementation.We lay out a ten-step process, which is based on long-term partnerships and working within local systems and constraints and may be tailored to the context and needs. Service development and operational research is best prioritised, designed, conducted and replicated when it is embedded within ministry of health and national programmes. Care packages should from the outset be designed for scale-up, which is why the piloting stage is so crucial. In this way, the resulting package of care will be feasible within the context and will address local priorities. Researchers must be entrepreneurial and responsive to windows of funding for scale-up, working in real-world contexts where funding and decisions do not wait for evidence, so evidence generation has to be pragmatic to meet and ensure best use of the policy and financing cycles. The research should generate tested and easily usable tools, training materials and processes for use in scale-up. Development of the package should work within and strengthen the health system and other service delivery strategies to ensure that unintended negative consequences are minimised and that the strengthened systems support quality care and effective scale up of the package.While embedded development and research is promoted in theory, it is not yet practiced at scale by many initiatives, leading to wasted resources and un-sustained programmes. This guide presents a systematic and practical guide to support more effective engagements in future, both in developing interventions and supporting evidence-based scale-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Lecturer 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,822,942
of 25,880,422 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#206
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,548
of 344,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,880,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 344,234 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 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.