| Title |
Translating research into policy: lessons learned from eclampsia treatment and malaria control in three southern African countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-7-31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Godfrey Woelk, Karen Daniels, Julie Cliff, Simon Lewin, Esperança Sevene, Benedita Fernandes, Alda Mariano, Sheillah Matinhure, Andrew D Oxman, John N Lavis, Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg |
| Abstract |
Little is known about the process of knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries. We studied policymaking processes in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe to understand the factors affecting the use of research evidence in national policy development, with a particular focus on the findings from randomized control trials (RCTs). We examined two cases: the use of magnesium sulphate (MgSO(4)) in the treatment of eclampsia in pregnancy (a clinical case); and the use of insecticide treated bed nets and indoor residual household spraying for malaria vector control (a public health case). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 20% |
| Researcher | 30 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 35 | 22% |
| Unknown | 21 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 37 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,990,254
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#557
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,112
of 163,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 163,493 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 85% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.