↓ Skip to main content

Joining the dots: the role of brokers in nutrition policy in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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.
Title
Joining the dots: the role of brokers in nutrition policy in Australia
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4217-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Cullerton, Timothy Donnet, Amanda Lee, Danielle Gallegos

Abstract

Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Australia. A range of cost-effective, comprehensive population-focussed strategies are available to address these dietary-related diseases. However, despite evidence of their effectiveness, minimal federal resources are directed to this area. To better understand the limited public health nutrition policy action in Australia, we sought to identify the key policy brokers in the Australian nutrition policy network and consider their level of influence over nutrition policymaking. A social network analysis involving four rounds of data collection was undertaken using a modified reputational snowball method to identify the nutrition policy network of individuals in direct contact with each other. Centrality measures, in particular betweenness centrality, and a visualisation of the network were used to identify key policy brokers. Three hundred and ninety (390) individual actors with 1917 direct ties were identified within the Australian nutrition policy network. The network revealed two key brokers; a Nutrition Academic and a General Health professional from a non-government organisation (NGO), with the latter being in the greatest strategic position for influencing policymakers. The results of this social network analysis illustrate there are two dominant brokers within the nutrition policy network in Australia. However their structural position in the network means their brokerage roles have different purposes and different levels of influence on policymaking. The results suggest that brokerage in isolation may not adequately represent influence in nutrition policy in Australia. Other factors, such as direct access to decision-makers and the saliency of the solution, must also be considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Researcher 12 15%
Unspecified 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 20 24%
Social Sciences 18 22%
Unspecified 16 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Other 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#615,051
of 12,355,588 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#660
of 8,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,938
of 267,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#19
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,588 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 267,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.