↓ Skip to main content

Exploring linkages between research, policy and practice in the Netherlands: perspectives on sexual and reproductive health and rights knowledge flows

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2017
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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Exploring linkages between research, policy and practice in the Netherlands: perspectives on sexual and reproductive health and rights knowledge flows
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0201-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Billie de Haas, Anke van der Kwaak

Abstract

The attention to and demand for stronger linkages between research, policy and practice are increasing, especially in fields concerned with sensitive and challenging issues such as sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). The study described in this article was conducted in the Netherlands among actors working in international development, especially the domain of SRHR. It explores the perceived flow of knowledge between research, policy and practice, the perceived impeding factors, and suggested strategies for improvement. A narrative literature review was performed and 28 key informants were interviewed between May and August 2015. Most interviewees were either active or passive members of Share-Net Netherlands, an SRHR knowledge platform. All interviews, which lasted 70 minutes on average, were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded in MAXQDA. Linkages between research, policy and practice are many and diffuse. The demands for and supplies of knowledge within and across the fields vary and do not always match, which is shown by participants' research purposes and approaches. Participants identified various barriers to strengthening knowledge flows, including a lack of familiarity with practices in other fields, power relations and the undervaluation of tacit knowledge. They suggested a more visible and concrete demand for and supply of knowledge, the development of a joint knowledge agenda, more opportunities for the interdisciplinary creation of knowledge, and the development of a system for learning and sharing knowledge. This study shows the willingness to undertake, and the perceived advantages of, interdisciplinary dialogues and joint creation of knowledge to advance SRHR research, policies and practices. Whereas barriers to the flow of knowledge may maintain present understandings of knowledge and of whose knowledge is valid, enabling factors, such as interactions between research, policy and practice in knowledge-sharing activities, may challenge such perceptions and create an enabling environment for generating innovative knowledge and increasing knowledge use. Knowledge platforms are recommended to place more emphasis on sharing and documenting tacit knowledge through interdisciplinary dialogues, to address power relations and to set criteria for interdisciplinary funding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 10 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,591,596
of 12,145,106 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#332
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,504
of 268,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,145,106 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 268,632 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.