↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative assessment of opportunities and challenges to improve evidence-informed health policy-making in Hungary – an EVIPNet situation analysis pilot

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2018
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
13 tweeters

Readers on

40 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.
Qualitative assessment of opportunities and challenges to improve evidence-informed health policy-making in Hungary – an EVIPNet situation analysis pilot
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0331-z
Pubmed ID

Péter Mihalicza, Mark Leys, Ilona Borbás, Szabolcs Szigeti, Olivia Biermann, Tanja Kuchenmüller


In evidence-informed policy-making (EIP), major knowledge gaps remain in understanding the context and possibilities for institutionalisation of knowledge translation. In 2014, the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe initiated a number of pilot countries, with Hungary among them, to engage in a 'situation analysis' (SA) in order to fill some of those gaps. This contribution discusses the results of the SA in Hungary on research-policy interactions, facilitating factors and potential barriers to establish a knowledge translation platform (KTP). In line with the EVIPNet Europe SA Manual, a document analysis, 13 interviews, 3 focus group discussions with 21 participants, and an online survey with 31 respondents were carried out from April to October, 2015. A SA aims to assess the context in which EIP takes form and seeks opportunities to establish a KTP, so information was gathered on the current practice of EIP and knowledge translation, its relevant actors, enablers and barriers for EIP, and opinions on a future KTP. Methodological and researcher triangulation resulted in a narrative synthesis of data, including a comparison with literature. A stakeholder consultation was organised to validate findings. This study reveals that stakeholders show commitment to produce and use research evidence in Hungarian health policy-making. All stakeholders endorsed the idea of strengthening the systematic use of evidence in decision-making and favoured the idea of establishing a KTP. In line with literature on other countries, some good practices exist on the uptake of evidence in policy-making; however, a systematic approach of developing, translating and using research evidence in health policy processes is lacking. EIP is currently hampered by scattered capacity, coordination problems, high fluctuation in government, an often legalistic and a more 'symbolic' rather than practical support for knowledge translation and EIP. The article summarises recommendations on a Hungarian KTP. Pragmatic adaptation of the SA Manual to local needs proved to be a useful mechanism to provide insight into the Hungarian EIP field and the establishment of a potential KTP. Despite the success of a KTP pilot, it remains unclear how a KTP in Hungary will be institutionalised in a sustainable way.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,110,606 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,110,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 268,173 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them