↓ Skip to main content

Prospects for progress on health inequalities in England in the post-primary care trust era: professional views on challenges, risks and opportunities

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Prospects for progress on health inequalities in England in the post-primary care trust era: professional views on challenges, risks and opportunities
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Turner, Sarah Salway, Ghazala Mir, George TH Ellison, John Skinner, Lynne Carter, Bushara Bostan

Abstract

Addressing health inequalities remains a prominent policy objective of the current UK government, but current NHS reforms involve a significant shift in roles and responsibilities. Clinicians are now placed at the heart of healthcare commissioning through which significant inequalities in access, uptake and impact of healthcare services must be addressed. Questions arise as to whether these new arrangements will help or hinder progress on health inequalities. This paper explores the perspectives of experienced healthcare professionals working within the commissioning arena; many of whom are likely to remain key actors in this unfolding scenario.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Other 12 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 20%
Social Sciences 24 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Psychology 9 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#5,263,401
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,255
of 17,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,392
of 210,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#80
of 305 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 210,701 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 305 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.