↓ Skip to main content

A guide to policy analysis as a research method

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion International, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
57 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
611 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A guide to policy analysis as a research method
Published in
Health Promotion International, August 2018
DOI 10.1093/heapro/day052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Browne, Brian Coffey, Kay Cook, Sarah Meiklejohn, Claire Palermo

Abstract

Policy analysis provides a way for understanding how and why governments enact certain policies, and their effects. Public health policy research is limited and lacks theoretical underpinnings. This article aims to describe and critique different approaches to policy analysis thus providing direction for undertaking policy analysis in the field of health promotion. Through the use of an illustrative example in nutrition it aims to illustrate the different approaches. Three broad orientations to policy analysis are outlined: (i) Traditional approaches aim to identify the 'best' solution, through undertaking objective analyses of possible solutions. (ii) Mainstream approaches focus on the interaction of policy actors in policymaking. (iii) Interpretive approaches examine the framing and representation of problems and how policies reflect the social construction of 'problems'. Policy analysis may assist understanding of how and why policies to improve nutrition are enacted (or rejected) and may inform practitioners in their advocacy. As such, policy analysis provides researchers with a powerful tool to understand the use of research evidence in policymaking and generate a heightened understanding of the values, interests and political contexts underpinning policy decisions. Such methods may enable more effective advocacy for policies that can lead to improvements in health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 611 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 611 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 12%
Researcher 47 8%
Student > Bachelor 46 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 5%
Other 80 13%
Unknown 238 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 150 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 5%
Arts and Humanities 26 4%
Environmental Science 25 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 4%
Other 109 18%
Unknown 247 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,122,367
of 24,653,581 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion International
#95
of 1,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,074
of 335,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion International
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,653,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 335,459 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 96% of its contemporaries.