Indexed in Journament

health research policy and systems

ISSN 1478-4505· EN

Journal Website Certificate of Indexing
Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
38.0 / 100
Journament Score
Poor
Ranked #3,845 of 29,312 scored journals (34,012 indexed)
63 Articles
Scores higher than 86.8% of scored journals
050100
The Journament Score is computed from platform statistics — reader engagement, accessibility, publication timeliness, keyword breadth, community impact and content distribution — into a single 0–100 figure, recalculated as new articles and metadata are indexed. Dimensions that cannot be measured for this journal are excluded rather than estimated. It is independent of the paid AI Quality Analysis, which never affects this score or the ranking. Full methodology →

About This Journal

Short Name health res policy syst
Abbreviated Name health res policy syst
ISSN 1478-4505
URL https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com

Quality Profile

7 of 12 dimensions measured
This journal Average of scored journals
Platform statistics — the free Journament Score AI Quality Analysis — separate paid product, ranks nothing

5 of the 12 dimensions could not be measured for this journal. They are left as gaps in the shape rather than plotted as zero.

Show the numbers
Dimension This journal Corpus average
Engagement 30.5 30.4
Accessibility 20.0 20.4
Timeliness 0.0 5.8
Diversity 46.3 24.4
Innovation 70.0 25.7
Community Impact 16.4 5.8
Content Distribution 76.2 88.6
Content Quality — 55.5
Ethics & Transparency — 40.2
Editorial Standards — 33.4
Publication Regularity — 53.2
Geographic Reach — 30.8

Publications Per Year

Articles (63)

2017
Policymakers’ experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation
Haynes, Abby;Brennan, Sue;Redman, Sally;Williamson, Anna;Makkar, Steve R.;Gallego, Gisselle;Butow, Phyllis;
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. 1-20
624 views Abstract
2019
Study protocol: a mixed-methods study of women's healthcare in the safety net after Affordable Care Act implementation - EVERYWOMAN.
Cottrell, Erika;Darney, Blair G;Marino, Miguel;Templeton, Anna Rose;Jacob, Lorie;Hoopes, Megan;Rodriguez, Maria;Hatch, Brigit;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 58
506 views DOI Abstract
2018
Decisions in health technology assessment: should we speak with one voice?
Merlin, Tracy;
Vol. 16 , No. 1 , pp. 1-3
502 views Abstract
2019
Scaling up eConsult for access to specialists in primary healthcare across four Canadian provinces: study protocol of a multiple case study.
Breton, Mylaine;Smithman, Mélanie Ann;Liddy, Clare;Keely, Erin;Farrell, Gerard;Singer, Alexander;Lamoureux-Lamarche, Catherine;Dumas Pilon, Maxine;Nabelsi, Véronique;Gaboury, Isabelle;Gagnon, Marie-Pierre;Steele Gray, Carolyn;Shaw, Jay;Hudon, Catherine;Aubrey-Bassler, Kris;Gagnon, Justin;Côté-Boileau, Élizabeth;Bush, Paula Louise;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 83
497 views DOI Abstract
2019
The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: a scoping review.
Côté-Boileau, Élizabeth;Denis, Jean-Louis;Callery, Bill;Sabean, Meghan;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 84
473 views DOI Abstract
2017
Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool
Daniela C. Rodríguez;Connie Hoe;Elina M. Dale;M. Hafizur Rahman;Sadika Akhter;Assad Hafeez;Wayne Irava;Preety Rajbangshi;Tamlyn Roman;Marcela Ţîrdea;Rouham Yamout;David H. Peters;Daniela C. Rodríguez;Connie Hoe;Elina M. Dale;M. Hafizur Rahman;Sadika Akhter;Assad Hafeez;Wayne Irava;Preety Rajbangshi;Tamlyn Roman;Marcela Ţîrdea;Rouham Yamout;David H. Peters;
Vol. 15 , No. 1 , pp. 1-13
469 views DOI Abstract
2015
Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers’ use of research in policy and program development
Steve R Makkar;Anna Williamson;Tari Turner;Sally Redman;Jordan Louviere;Steve R Makkar;Anna Williamson;Tari Turner;Sally Redman;Jordan Louviere;
Vol. 13 , No. 1 , pp. 1-15
465 views DOI Abstract
2015
A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods
Andrew J Milat;Adrian E Bauman;Sally Redman;Andrew J Milat;Adrian E Bauman;Sally Redman;
Vol. 13 , No. 1 , pp. 1-7
457 views DOI Abstract
2019
How have researchers defined and used the concept of 'continuity of care' for chronic conditions in the context of resource-constrained settings? A scoping review of existing literature and a proposed conceptual framework.
Meiqari, Lana;Al-Oudat, Tammam;Essink, Dirk;Scheele, Fedde;Wright, Pamela;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 27
446 views DOI Abstract
2015
Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers
Steve R Makkar;Anna Williamson;Tari Turner;Sally Redman;Jordan Louviere;Steve R Makkar;Anna Williamson;Tari Turner;Sally Redman;Jordan Louviere;
Vol. 13 , No. 1 , pp. 1-16
426 views DOI Abstract
2020
Development of the WHO Antenatal Care Recommendations Adaptation Toolkit: a standardised approach for countries.
Barreix, Maria;Lawrie, Theresa A;Kidula, Nancy;Tall, Fatim;Bucagu, Maurice;Chahar, Ram;Tunçalp, Özge;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 70
346 views DOI Abstract
2020
How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations
Kamenetzky, A.
Vol. 18 , pp. 0-0
269 views DOI
2020
Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: A meta-narrative review
Zych, M.M.
Vol. 18 , pp. 0-0
189 views DOI
2020
Evaluating research investment and impact at a regional Australian Hospital and Health Service: a programme theory and conceptual framework.
Edelman, Alexandra;Brown, Amy;Pain, Tilley;Larkins, Sarah;Harvey, Gillian;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 30
337 views DOI Abstract
2020
The importance of power, context and agency in improving patient experience through a patient and family centred care approach.
Ocloo, Josephine;Goodrich, Joanna;Tanaka, Hiro;Birchall-Searle, Julia;Dawson, Derek;Farr, Michelle;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 10
361 views DOI Abstract
2019
How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study
Anna Williamson;Hannah Tait;Fadi El Jardali;Luke Wolfenden;Sarah Thackway;Jessica Stewart;Lyndal O’Leary;Julie Dixon;Anna Williamson;Hannah Tait;Fadi El Jardali;Luke Wolfenden;Sarah Thackway;Jessica Stewart;Lyndal O’Leary;Julie Dixon;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-11
329 views DOI Abstract
2019
A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers
Hannah Tait;Anna Williamson;Hannah Tait;Anna Williamson;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-14
385 views DOI Abstract
2019
Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial
Anna Williamson,Daniel Barker,Sally Elizabeth Green,Catherine D’Este,H.T.O. Davies,Louisa Jorm,Anthony Shakeshaft,Sian Rudge,Sally Redman;Anna Williamson;Daniel Barker;Sally Elizabeth Green;Catherine D’Este;H.T.O. Davies;Louisa Jorm;Anthony Shakeshaft;Sian Rudge;Sally Redman;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-16
312 views DOI Abstract
2019
Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial
Anna Williamson;Daniel Barker;Sally Green;Catherine D’Este;Huw T. O. Davies;Louisa Jorm;Anthony Shakeshaft;Sian Rudge;Sally Redman;Anna Williamson;Daniel Barker;Sally Green;Catherine D’Este;Huw T. O. Davies;Louisa Jorm;Anthony Shakeshaft;Sian Rudge;Sally Redman;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-16
370 views DOI Abstract
2019
How can we improve priority-setting for investments in health research? A case study of tuberculosis.
Khan, Mishal S;Rahman-Shepherd, Afifah;Painter, Hannah;Fletcher, Helen;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 68
291 views DOI Abstract
Journament Score
38.0/100 · Poor
Ranked #3,845 of 29,312 scored
(34,012 journals indexed)
Platform Statistics
AI Quality Analysis
Separate paid analysis — does not affect ranking.
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.0/100

Tier: Poor

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

30.5/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

20.0/100

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

46.3/100

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

70.0/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

16.4/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

0.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Content Distribution

76.2/100

Measures how evenly reader attention spreads across the journal's articles, using the Gini coefficient of article clicks.

Higher scores mean readership is distributed across many articles rather than concentrated on one or two.

Ethics & Transparency Score

Not yet measured

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

Not yet measured

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

Not yet measured

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

Not yet measured

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

Not yet measured

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.