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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Participatory simulation modelling to inform public health policy and practice: Rethinking the evidence hierarchies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1057/s41271-016-0061-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eloise O’Donnell, Jo-An Atkinson, Louise Freebairn, Lucie Rychetnik |
| Abstract |
Drawing on the long tradition of evidence-based medicine that aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical practice, the field of public health has sought to apply 'hierarchies of evidence' to appraise and synthesise public health research. Various critiques of this approach led to the development of synthesis methods that include broader evidence typologies and more 'fit for purpose' privileging of methodological designs. While such adaptations offer great utility for evidence-informed public health policy and practice, this paper offers an alternative perspective on the synthesis of evidence that necessitates a yet more egalitarian approach. Dynamic simulation modelling is increasingly recognised as a valuable evidence synthesis tool to inform public health policy and programme planning for complex problems. The development of simulation models draws on and privileges a wide range of evidence typologies, thus challenging the traditional use of 'hierarchies of evidence' to support decisions on complex dynamic problems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,559,172
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#642
of 794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,453
of 310,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.