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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The scope and impact of mobile health clinics in the United States: a literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-017-0671-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie W. Y. Yu, Caterina Hill, Mariesa L. Ricks, Jennifer Bennet, Nancy E. Oriol |
| Abstract |
As the U.S. healthcare system transforms its care delivery model to increase healthcare accessibility and improve health outcomes, it is undergoing changes in the context of ever-increasing chronic disease burdens and healthcare costs. Many illnesses disproportionately affect certain populations, due to disparities in healthcare access and social determinants of health. These disparities represent a key area to target in order to better our nation's overall health and decrease healthcare expenditures. It is thus imperative for policymakers and health professionals to develop innovative interventions that sustainably manage chronic diseases, promote preventative health, and improve outcomes among communities disenfranchised from traditional healthcare as well as among the general population. This article examines the available literature on Mobile Health Clinics (MHCs) and the role that they currently play in the U.S. healthcare system. Based on a search in the PubMed database and data from the online collaborative research network of mobile clinics MobileHealthMap.org , the authors evaluated 51 articles with evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of the mobile health sector in the United States. Current literature supports that MHCs are successful in reaching vulnerable populations, by delivering services directly at the curbside in communities of need and flexibly adapting their services based on the changing needs of the target community. As a link between clinical and community settings, MHCs address both medical and social determinants of health, tackling health issues on a community-wide level. Furthermore, evidence suggest that MHCs produce significant cost savings and represent a cost-effective care delivery model that improves health outcomes in underserved groups. Even though MHCs can fulfill many goals and mandates in alignment with our national priorities and have the potential to help combat some of the largest healthcare challenges of this era, there are limitations and challenges to this healthcare delivery model that must be addressed and overcome before they can be more broadly integrated into our healthcare system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 36% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Scientists | 4 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 483 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 483 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 88 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 10% |
| Researcher | 38 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 38 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 73 | 15% |
| Unknown | 172 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 78 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 35 | 7% |
| Psychology | 15 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 2% |
| Other | 78 | 16% |
| Unknown | 189 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 113. 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 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#375,685
of 25,635,728 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#23
of 2,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,920
of 331,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,635,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,252 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 331,724 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.