↓ Skip to main content

A review of health promotion funding for older adults in Europe: a cross-country comparison

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
A review of health promotion funding for older adults in Europe: a cross-country comparison
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1515-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jelena Arsenijevic, Wim Groot, Marzena Tambor, Stanislawa Golinowska, Christoph Sowada, Milena Pavlova

Abstract

Health promotion interventions for older adults are important as they can decrease the onset and evolution of diseases and thus can reduce the medical costs related to those diseases. However, there is no comparative evidence on how those interventions are funded in European countries. The aim of this study is to explore the funding of health promotion interventions in general and health promotion interventions for older adults in particular in European countries. We use desk research to identify relevant sources of information such as official national documents, international databases and scientific articles. Fora descriptive overview on how health promotion is funded, we focus on three dimensions: who is funding health promotion, what are the contribution mechanisms and who are the collecting agents. In addition to general information on funding of health promotion, we explore how programs on health promotion for older population groups are funded. There is a great diversity in funding of health promotion in European countries. Although public sources (tax and social health insurance revenues) are still most often used, other mechanisms of funding such as private donations or European funds are also common. Furthermore, there is no clear pattern in the funding of health promotion for different population groups. This is of particular importance for health promotion for older adults where information is limited across European countries. This study provides an overview of funding of health promotion interventions in European countries. The main obstacles for funding health promotion interventions are lack of information and the fragmentation in the funding of health promotion interventions for older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 30%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,575
of 7,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,158
of 335,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#165
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 335,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.