| Title |
Prospective policy analysis: how an epistemic community informed policymaking on intentional self poisoning in Sri Lanka
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-8-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa Pearson, Anthony B Zwi, Nicholas A Buckley |
| Abstract |
Policy analysis is often retrospective and not well suited to helping policy makers decide what to do; in contrast prospective policy analysis seeks to assist in formulating responses to challenging public policy questions. Suicide in Sri Lanka is a major public health problem, with ingestion of pesticides being the primary method. Previous policy interventions have been associated with reduced mortality through restricting access to the most toxic pesticides. Additional means of reducing access are still needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Uganda | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 25% |
| Unknown | 17 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,377,904
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#755
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,084
of 93,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 93,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.