↓ Skip to main content

Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
53 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
971 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1185 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Dixon-Woods, Debbie Cavers, Shona Agarwal, Ellen Annandale, Antony Arthur, Janet Harvey, Ron Hsu, Savita Katbamna, Richard Olsen, Lucy Smith, Richard Riley, Alex J Sutton

Abstract

Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 28 2%
Canada 10 <1%
South Africa 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Uganda 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 1122 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 270 23%
Researcher 202 17%
Student > Master 200 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 92 8%
Student > Bachelor 60 5%
Other 234 20%
Unknown 127 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 307 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 245 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 145 12%
Psychology 92 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 42 4%
Other 181 15%
Unknown 173 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 20 October 2021.
All research outputs
#640,755
of 19,451,913 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#62
of 1,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,362
of 170,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,451,913 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 170,360 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them