↓ Skip to main content

Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Putting research in place: an innovative approach to providing contextualized evidence synthesis for decision makers
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0606-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Bornstein, Rochelle Baker, Pablo Navarro, Sarah Mackey, David Speed, Melissa Sullivan

Abstract

The Contextualized Health Research Synthesis Program (CHRSP), developed in 2007 by the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research, produces contextualized knowledge syntheses for health-system decision makers. The program provides timely, relevant, and easy-to-understand scientific evidence; optimizes evidence uptake; and, most importantly, attunes research questions and evidence to the specific context in which knowledge users must apply the findings. As an integrated knowledge translation (KT) method, CHRSP: Involves intensive partnerships with senior healthcare decision makers who propose priority research topics and participate on research teams; Considers local context both in framing the research question and in reporting the findings; Makes economical use of resources by utilizing a limited number of staff; Uses a combination of external and local experts; and Works quickly by synthesizing high-level systematic review evidence rather than primary studies. Although it was developed in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the CHRSP methodology is adaptable to a variety of settings with distinctive features, such as those in rural, remote, and small-town locations. CHRSP has published 25 syntheses on priority topics chosen by the provincial healthcare system, including: Clinical and cost-effectiveness: telehealth, rural renal dialysis, point-of-care testing; Community-based health services: helping seniors age in place, supporting seniors with dementia, residential treatment centers for at-risk youth; Healthcare organization/service delivery: reducing acute-care length of stay, promoting flu vaccination among health workers, safe patient handling, age-friendly acute care; and Health promotion: diabetes prevention, promoting healthy dietary habits. These studies have been used by decision makers to inform local policy and practice decisions. By asking the health system to identify its own priorities and to participate directly in the research process, CHRSP fully integrates KT among researchers and knowledge users in healthcare in Newfoundland and Labrador. This high level of decision-maker buy-in has resulted in a corresponding level of uptake. CHRSP studies have directly informed a number of policy and practice directions, including the design of youth residential treatment centers, a provincial policy on single-use medical devices, and most recently, the opening of the province's first Acute Care for the Elderly hospital unit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 65 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 13 6%
Environmental Science 6 3%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 78 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,226,787
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#603
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,139
of 330,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 330,458 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.