| Title |
Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0771-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ross C. Brownson, Elizabeth A. Dodson, Jon F. Kerner, Sarah Moreland-Russell |
| Abstract |
Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators' policy choices. We explored: (1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and (2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking. Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state houses or senates) from January through October 2012 (n = 862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information. Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the "source" domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one's own position), one item in the "presentation" domain (telling a story related to constituents) and two items in the "timeliness" domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80 % more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work. Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers' constituents in a brief, concise format. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,631,858
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#297
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,301
of 357,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#2
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 357,507 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 93% of its contemporaries.