↓ Skip to main content

Gaps between research and public health priorities in low income countries: evidence from a systematic literature review focused on Cambodia

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2015
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

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Gaps between research and public health priorities in low income countries: evidence from a systematic literature review focused on Cambodia
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0217-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Goyet, Socheat Touch, Por Ir, Sovannchhorvin SamAn, Thomas Fassier, Roger Frutos, Arnaud Tarantola, Hubert Barennes

Abstract

Evidence-based public health requires that research provides policymakers with reliable and accessible information reflecting the disease threats. We described the scientific production of research in Cambodia and assessed to what extent it provides appropriate insights and implications for practice to guide health policymakers and managers and knowledge relevant for translation. We conducted a systematic review of scientific articles published on biomedical research in Cambodia. Regression analysis assessed the trends over time and factors associated with actionable messages in the articles' abstracts. From 2000 to 2012, 628 articles were published in 237 journals with a significant increase over time (from 0.6/million population to 5.9/million population, slope coefficient 7.6, 95% CI 6.5-8.7, p < 0.001). Most publications on diseases addressed communicable diseases (n = 410, 65.3%). Non-communicable diseases (NCD) were under-addressed (7.7% of all publications) considering their burden (34.5% of the disease burden). Of all articles, 67.8% reported descriptive studies and 4.3% reported studies with a high level of evidence; 27.4% of studies were led by an institution based in Cambodia. Factors associated with an actionable message (n = 73, 26.6%) were maternal health (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.55-6.13, p = 0.001), the first author's institution being Cambodian (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-2.98, p = 0.02) and a free access to full article (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.08-8.70, p = 0.03). Of all articles, 87% (n = 546) were accessible in full text from Cambodia. Scientific publications do not fully match with health priorities. Gaps remain regarding NCD, implementation studies, and health system research. A health research agenda would help align research with health priorities. We recommend 1) that the health authorities create an online repository of research findings with abstracts in the local language; 2) that academics emphasize the importance of research in their university teaching; and 3) that the researcher teams involve local researchers and that they systematically provide a translation of their abstracts upon submission to a journal. We conclude that building the bridge between research and public health requires a willful, comprehensive strategy rather than relying solely only publications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 21%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 28%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 November 2020.
All research outputs
#5,059,665
of 24,752,948 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#917
of 1,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,206
of 264,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,752,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 264,166 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.