↓ Skip to main content

Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
308 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
Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: a scoping review
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0459-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vladimir Khanassov, Pierre Pluye, Sarah Descoteaux, Jeannie L. Haggerty, Grant Russell, Jane Gunn, Jean-Frederic Levesque

Abstract

Access to community-based primary health care (hereafter, 'primary care') is a priority in many countries. Health care systems have emphasized policies that help the community 'get the right service in the right place at the right time'. However, little is known about organizational interventions in primary care that are aimed to improve access for populations in situations of vulnerability (e.g., socioeconomically disadvantaged) and how successful they are. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the existing evidence on organizational interventions that improve access to primary care services for vulnerable populations. Scoping review followed an iterative process. Eligibility criteria: organizational interventions in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries; aiming to improve access to primary care for vulnerable populations; all study designs; published from 2000 in English or French; reporting at least one outcome (avoidable hospitalization, emergency department admission, or unmet health care needs). Main bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) and team members' personal files. One researcher selected relevant abstracts and full text papers. Theory-driven synthesis: The researcher classified included studies using (i) the 'Patient Centered Access to Healthcare' conceptual framework (dimensions and outcomes of access to primary care), and (ii) the classification of interventions of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care. Using pattern analysis, interventions were mapped in accordance with the presence/absence of 'dimension-outcome' patterns. Out of 8,694 records (title/abstract), 39 studies with varying designs were included. The analysis revealed the following pattern. Results of 10 studies on interventions classified as 'Formal integration of services' suggested that these interventions were associated with three dimensions of access (approachability, availability and affordability) and reduction of hospitalizations (four/four studies), emergency department admissions (six/six studies), and unmet healthcare needs (five/six studies). These 10 studies included seven non-randomized studies, one randomized controlled trial, one quantitative descriptive study, and one mixed methods study. Our results suggest the limited breadth of research in this area, and that it will be feasible to conduct a full systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of the formal integration of services to improve access to primary care services for vulnerable populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 307 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 14%
Researcher 40 13%
Student > Master 37 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Student > Bachelor 23 7%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 92 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 17%
Social Sciences 23 7%
Psychology 11 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 2%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 98 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,159,203
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#336
of 2,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,321
of 328,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 328,323 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.