↓ Skip to main content

Reflections on ‘medical tourism’ from the 2016 Global Healthcare Policy and Management Forum

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Reflections on ‘medical tourism’ from the 2016 Global Healthcare Policy and Management Forum
Published in
BMC Proceedings, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12919-017-0075-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valorie A. Crooks, Meghann Ormond, Ki Nam Jin

Abstract

In October 2016, the Global Healthcare Policy and Management Forum was held at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. The goal of the forum was to discuss the role of the state in regulating and supporting the development of medical tourism. Forum attendees came from 10 countries. In this short report article, we identify key lessons from the forum that can inform the direction of future scholarly engagement with medical tourism. In so doing, we reference on-going scholarly debates about this global health services practice that have appeared in multiple venues, including this very journal. Key questions for future research emerging from the forum include: who should be meaningfully involved in identifying and defining categories of those travelling across borders for health services and what risks exist if certain voices are underrepresented in such a process; who does and does not 'count' as a medical tourist and what are the implications of such quantitative assessments; why have researchers not been able to address pressing knowledge gaps regarding the health equity impacts of medical tourism; and how do national-level polices and initiatives shape the ways in which medical tourism is unfolding in specific local centres and clinics? This short report as an important time capsule that summarises the current state of medical tourism research knowledge as articulated by the thought leaders in attendance at the forum while also pushing for research growth.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 33%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 10 16%
Social Sciences 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 25%

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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,652,167
of 20,993,108 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#305
of 360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,230
of 285,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,993,108 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 360 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 285,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.