↓ Skip to main content

Mapping the use of research to support strategies tackling maternal and child health inequities: evidence from six countries in Africa and Latin America

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Mapping the use of research to support strategies tackling maternal and child health inequities: evidence from six countries in Africa and Latin America
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0072-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Vargas, Victor Becerril-Montekio, Miguel Ángel Gonzalez-Block, Patricia Akweongo, Cynthia N. A. Hazel, Maria de Fatima Cuembelo, Felix Limbani, Wanderley Bernardo, Fernando Muñoz

Abstract

Striving to foster collaboration among countries suffering from maternal and child health (MCH) inequities, the MASCOT project mapped and analyzed the use of research in strategies tackling them in 11 low- and middle-income countries. This article aims to present the way in which research influenced MCH policies and programs in six of these countries - three in Africa and three in Latin America. Qualitative research using a thematic synthesis narrative process was used to identify and describe who is producing what kind of research, how research is funded, how inequities are approached by research and policies, the countries' research capacities, and the type of evidence base that MCH policies and programs use. Four tools were designed for these purposes: an online survey for researchers, a semi-structured interview with decision makers, and two content analysis guides: one for policy and programs documents and one for scientific articles. Three modalities of research utilization were observed in the strategies tackling MCH inequities in the six included countries - instrumental, conceptual and symbolic. Instrumental utilization directly relates the formulation and contents of the strategies with research results, and is the least used within the analyzed policies and programs. Even though research is considered as an important input to support decision making and most of the analyzed countries count five or six relevant MCH research initiatives, in most cases, the actual impact of research is not clearly identifiable. While MCH research is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of its outcomes on policy formulation is low. We did not identify a direct relationship between the nature of the financial support organizations and the kind of evidence utilization within the policy process. There is still a visible gap between researchers and policymakers regarding their different intentions to link evidence and decision making processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Librarian 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 27%
Social Sciences 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 6 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,653,098
of 12,360,355 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#276
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,446
of 336,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,360,355 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 336,050 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.