↓ Skip to main content

Analysing key influences over actors’ use of evidence in developing policies and strategies in Nigeria: a retrospective study of the Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health strategy

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Analysing key influences over actors’ use of evidence in developing policies and strategies in Nigeria: a retrospective study of the Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health strategy
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0098-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chinyere O. Mbachu, Obinna Onwujekwe, Ifeanyi Chikezie, Nkoli Ezumah, Mahua Das, Benjamin S. C. Uzochukwu

Abstract

Evidence-informed policymaking has been promoted as a means of ensuring better outcomes. However, what counts as evidence in policymaking lies within a spectrum of expert knowledge and scientifically generated information. Since not all forms of evidence share an equal validity or weighting for policymakers, it is important to understand the key factors that influence their preferences for different types of evidence in policy and strategy development. A retrospective study was carried out at the national level in Nigeria using a case-study approach to examine the Nigerian Integrated Maternal Newborn and Child Health (IMNCH) strategy. Two frameworks were used for conceptualization and data analysis, namely (1) to analyse the role of evidence in policymaking and (2) the policy triangle. They were used to explore the key contextual and participatory influences on choice of evidence in developing the IMNCH strategy. Data was collected through review of relevant national documents and in-depth interviews of purposively selected key policy and strategic decision makers. Thematic analysis was applied to generate information from collected data. The breadth of evidence used was wide, ranging from expert opinions to systematic reviews. The choice of different types of evidence was found to overlap across actor categories. Key influences over actors' choice of evidence were: (1) perceived robustness of evidence - comprehensive, representative, recent, scientifically sound; (2) roles in evidence process, i.e. their degree and level of participation in evidence generation and dissemination, with regards to their role in the policy process; and (3) contextual factors such as global agenda and influence, timeline for strategy development, availability of resources for evidence generation, and lessons learnt from previous unsuccessful policies/plans. Actors' preferences for different types of evidence for policy are influenced not only by the characteristics of evidence itself, but on actors' roles in the evidence process, their power to influence the policy, and the context in which evidence is used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Librarian 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Social Sciences 17 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,579,181
of 25,424,630 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#616
of 1,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,727
of 316,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,424,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 316,366 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 59% of its contemporaries.