↓ Skip to main content

Closing the health equity gap: evidence-based strategies for primary health care organizations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 2,230)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
73 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
469 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Closing the health equity gap: evidence-based strategies for primary health care organizations
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-11-59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette J Browne, Colleen M Varcoe, Sabrina T Wong, Victoria L Smye, Josée Lavoie, Doreen Littlejohn, David Tu, Olive Godwin, Murry Krause, Koushambhi B Khan, Alycia Fridkin, Patricia Rodney, John O’Neil, Scott Lennox

Abstract

International evidence shows that enhancement of primary health care (PHC) services for disadvantaged populations is essential to reducing health and health care inequities. However, little is known about how to enhance equity at the organizational level within the PHC sector. Drawing on research conducted at two PHC Centres in Canada whose explicit mandates are to provide services to marginalized populations, the purpose of this paper is to discuss (a) the key dimensions of equity-oriented services to guide PHC organizations, and (b) strategies for operationalizing equity-oriented PHC services, particularly for marginalized populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 454 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 96 20%
Student > Bachelor 48 10%
Researcher 47 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 6%
Other 104 22%
Unknown 103 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 98 21%
Social Sciences 66 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Psychology 10 2%
Other 53 11%
Unknown 121 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 25 November 2022.
All research outputs
#471,549
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#35
of 2,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,475
of 192,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 192,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.