↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-Based Policy Making

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, 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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Evidence-Based Policy Making
Published in
Circulation, April 2016
DOI 10.1161/cir.0000000000000410
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

American Heart Association (AHA) public policy advocacy strategies are based on its Strategic Impact Goals. The writing group appraised the evidence behind AHA's policies to determine how well they address the association's 2020 cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics and cardiovascular disease (CVD) management indicators and identified research needed to fill gaps in policy and support further policy development. The AHA policy research department first identified current AHA policies specific to each CVH metric and CVD management indicator and the evidence underlying each policy. Writing group members then reviewed each policy and the related metrics and indicators. The results of each review were summarized, and topic-specific priorities and overarching themes for future policy research were proposed. There was generally close alignment between current AHA policies and the 2020 CVH metrics and CVD management indicators; however, certain specific policies still lack a robust evidence base. For CVH metrics, the distinction between policies for adults (age ≥20 years) and children (<20 years) was often not considered, although policy approaches may differ importantly by age. Inclusion of all those <20 years of age as a single group also ignores important differences in policy needs for infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. For CVD management indicators, specific quantitative targets analogous to criteria for ideal, intermediate, and poor CVH are lacking but needed to assess progress toward the 2020 goal to reduce deaths from CVDs and stroke. New research in support of current policies needs to focus on the evaluation of their translation and implementation through expanded application of implementation science. Focused basic, clinical, and population research is required to expand and strengthen the evidence base for the development of new policies. Evaluation of the impact of targeted improvements in population health through strengthened surveillance of CVD and stroke events, determination of the cost-effectiveness of policy interventions, and measurement of the extent to which vulnerable populations are reached must be assessed for all policies. Additional attention should be paid to the social determinants of health outcomes. AHA's public policies are generally robust and well aligned with its 2020 CVH metrics and CVD indicators. Areas for further policy development to fill gaps, overarching research strategies, and topic-specific priority areas are proposed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 4%
Other 47 18%
Unknown 99 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 15%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 109 41%
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 15 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,507,265
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#12,873
of 28,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,678
of 337,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#123
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 337,114 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.