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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Priority-setting in health research in Iran: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-018-0313-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abbas Badakhshan, Mohammad Arab, Arash Rashidian, Neda Mehrdad, Kazem Zendehdel |
| Abstract |
Priority-setting is a complicated and time-consuming process; however, if appropriately conducted, it could efficiently divert resources to the most important studies. A considerable body of evidence indicates that priority-setting measures in health research taken so far in Iran have not satisfied decision-makers, policy-makers, funders, communities, or even researchers. This study was designed to explore the flaws of these measures and their deciding factors. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 key participants and used a thematic data-analysis approach to analyse verbatim transcripts and documents. Our interviewees, who were skilful at conducting health research and worked as managers at different levels of the health system, were selected using a purposeful sampling. We asked about their experiences of priority-setting in health and relevant challenges and asked for recommendations. These semi-structured interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed in terms of content and themes using the MAXQDA10 qualitative data-analysis software. With regard to priority-setting facilitators and barriers, four themes were extracted, namely managerial factors, structural factors, motivational factors, and process factors. Managers' commitment, consideration of intellectual property, compliance with superordinate rules, and provision of a definition of reliable criteria were among the facilitators. The rapid turnover of managers, inefficiency of criteria for faculty promotion, and disregard of appeal mechanisms were examples of the barriers. It is important to consider appropriate regulations and motivations to provide research priorities and divert scarce resources to them. In addition, it is necessary to improve the knowledge and skills of researchers and research administration offices on priority-setting methods, thereby enhancing priority-oriented research projects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,686,056
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#395
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,478
of 327,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#33
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 327,941 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.