Measuring the policy citation rate of United Kingdom (UK) paramedic and ambulance service research: a bibliometric evaluation using BMJ Impact Analytics and the amber repository
Holland, M.
Show abstract
Context/Objective: Demonstrating real-world impact is increasingly important for prehospital researchers. While biomedical sciences show high altmetric coverage, policy citation density in paramedicine remains largely unknown. This study evaluates the policy citation rate of UK ambulance service research, measures uptake differences between clinical practice guidelines and broader health policies and maps its geographic dissemination. Methods: Following the BiBLio reporting guidelines, all publications with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) where at least one author was working in an NHS ambulance service were extracted from the amber repository covering 2006 to 2026 (N=2,095). Policy and clinical guideline citations were tracked using BMJ Impact Analytics. Document classifications and issuing organisation metadata were analysed in Microsoft Excel using descriptive bibliometrics. Key Findings: The overall policy citation rate was 23.48% (n=492/2,095), with 53.66% of cited papers cited once and 1.63% achieving 10 or more citations. A total of 1,143 citations were identified across 760 clinical practice guidelines (66.49%) and 383 health policies (33.51%), producing a guideline-to-policy ratio of 1.98:1. Multicentre clinical trials accrued high scholarly and policy citation volumes, whereas service design and workforce studies achieved high policy translation despite modest scholarly citations. Of 704 citations with resolvable geographic metadata, 46.45% (n=327) were domestic UK citations, 32.67% (n=230) originated from international Anglophone jurisdictions, 13.07% (n=92) from non-Anglophone European nations, and 4.83% (n=34) from international bodies. Conclusion/Significance: UK paramedic and ambulance service research demonstrates measurable translation into clinical practice guidelines and health policy, although its 23.48% policy citation rate places it towards the lower end of comparable empirical healthcare portfolios. The disproportionate uptake in clinical guidelines highlights the reliance of guideline panels on high-quality prehospital evidence. Maximising translational reach requires active dissemination by embedded researchers, explicit practice recommendations within publications, and systematic green open access preservation via sector repositories such as amber.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 93%
- Clinical academic research in the time of Corona: a simulation study in England and a call for action 93%
- Non-medical prescribing policy in the United Kingdom National Health Service: systematic review and narrative synthesis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 92%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 91%
- Key factors for effective implementation of healthcare workers support interventions in health organisations after patient safety incidents: a protocol for a scoping review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ : meta-research evaluation 91%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 91%
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 91%
- Essential Emergency and Critical Care – a consensus among global clinical experts 91%
- Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Modelling Efforts For Policy Decision-Making In Lower- And Middle-Income Countries 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 91%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 91%
- Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and critical appraisal 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.