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 |
Do evidence summaries increase policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews: A systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0116-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews are important for decision-makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision-makers. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on increasing policymakers' use of systematic review evidence and to identify the components or features of these summaries that are most effective. We will include studies of policy-makers at all levels as well as health-system managers. We will include studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that present evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes are the following: (1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and (2) policy-maker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We will conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBA), and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. The results of this review will inform the development of future systematic review summaries to ensure that systematic review evidence is accessible to and used by policy-makers making health-related decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 18% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,602,227
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#883
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,935
of 286,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 286,442 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 80% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.