↓ Skip to main content

Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue

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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0100-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A. Boyko, Anita Kothari, C. Nadine Wathen

Abstract

There is a need to understand scientific evidence in light of the context within which it will be used. Deliberative dialogues are a promising strategy that can be used to meet this evidence interpretation challenge. We evaluated a deliberative dialogue held by a transnational violence prevention network. The deliberative dialogue included researchers and knowledge user partners of the Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network and was incorporated into a biennial full-team meeting. The dialogue included pre- and post-meeting activities, as well as deliberations embedded within the meeting agenda. The deliberations included a preparatory plenary session, small group sessions and a synthesizing plenary. The challenge addressed through the process was how to mobilize research to orient health and social service systems to prevent family violence and its consequences. The deliberations focused on the challenge, potential solutions for addressing it and implementation factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected via questionnaires, meeting minutes, dialogue documents and follow-up telephone interviews. Forty-four individuals (all known to each other and from diverse professional roles, settings and countries) participated in the deliberative dialogue. Ten of the 12 features of the deliberative dialogue were rated favourably by all respondents. The mean behavioural intention score was 5.7 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), suggesting that many participants intended to use what they learned in their future decision-making. Interviews provided further insight into what might be done to facilitate the use of research in the violence prevention arena. Findings suggest that participants will use dialogue learnings to influence practice and policy change. Deliberative dialogues may be a viable strategy for collaborative sensemaking of research related to family violence prevention, and other public health topics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 24 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,742,415
of 25,048,615 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#651
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,197
of 305,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,048,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 305,389 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 61% of its contemporaries.