↓ Skip to main content

Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0009-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael G Wilson, John N Lavis, Francois-Pierre Gauvin

Abstract

There is currently no mechanism in place outside of government to provide rapid syntheses of the best available research evidence about problems, options and/or implementation considerations related to a specific health system challenge that Canadian health system decision-makers need to address in a timely manner. A 'rapid-response' program could address this gap by providing access to optimally packaged, relevant and high-quality research evidence over short periods of time (i.e. days or weeks). We prepared an issue brief that describes the best available research evidence related to the problem, three broad features of a program that addresses the problem and implementation considerations. We identified systematic reviews by searching for organization-targeted implementation strategies in Health Systems Evidence ( www.healthsystemsevidence.org ) and drew on an existing analytical framework for how knowledge-brokering organizations can organize themselves to operationalize the program features. The issue brief was then used to inform a half-day stakeholder dialogue about whether and how to develop a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. We thematically synthesized the deliberations. We found very few relevant systematic reviews but used frameworks and examples from existing programs to 1) outline key considerations for organizing a rapid-response program,, 2) determine what can be done in timelines ranging from 3 to 10 and 30 business days, and 3) define success and measure it. The 11 dialogue participants from across Canada largely agreed with the content presented in the brief, but noted two key challenges to consider: securing stable, long-term funding and finding a way to effectively and equitably manage the expected demand. Recommendations and suggestions for next steps from dialogue participants included taking an 'organic' approach to developing a pan-Canadian network and including jurisdictional scans as a type of product to deliver through the program (rather than only syntheses of research evidence). Dialogue participants clearly signalled that there is an appetite for a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. To 'organically' build such a program, we are currently engaging in efforts to build partnerships and secure funding to support the creation of a pan-Canadian network for conducting rapid syntheses for health system decision-makers in Canada.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Librarian 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Computer Science 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 April 2015.
All research outputs
#784,874
of 11,344,026 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#179
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,515
of 209,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 209,827 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.