↓ Skip to main content

Accessibility of general and specialized obstetric care providers in Germany and England: an analysis of location and neonatal outcome

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Accessibility of general and specialized obstetric care providers in Germany and England: an analysis of location and neonatal outcome
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12942-017-0116-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Bauer, David A. Groneberg, Werner Maier, Roxanne Manek, Frank Louwen, Dörthe Brüggmann

Abstract

Health care accessibility is known to differ geographically. With this study we focused on analysing accessibility of general and specialized obstetric units in England and Germany with regard to urbanity, area deprivation and neonatal outcome using routine data. We used a floating catchment area method to measure obstetric care accessibility, the degree of urbanization (DEGURBA) to measure urbanity and the index of multiple deprivation to measure area deprivation. Accessibility of general obstetric units was significantly higher in Germany compared to England (accessibility index of 16.2 vs. 11.6; p < 0.001), whereas accessibility of specialized obstetric units was higher in England (accessibility index for highest level of care of 0.235 vs. 0.002; p < 0.001). We further demonstrated higher obstetric accessibility for people living in less deprived areas in Germany (r = - 0.31; p < 0.001) whereas no correlation was present in England. There were also urban-rural disparities present, with higher accessibility in urban areas in both countries (r = 0.37-0.39; p < 0.001). The analysis did not show that accessibility affected neonatal outcomes. Finally, our computer generated model for obstetric care provider demand in terms of birth counts showed a very strong correlation with actual birth counts at obstetric units (r = 0.91-0.95; p < 0.001). In Germany the focus of obstetric care seemed to be put on general obstetric units leading to higher accessibility compared to England. Regarding specialized obstetric care the focus in Germany was put on high level units whereas in England obstetric care seems to be more balanced between the different levels of care with larger units on average leading to higher accessibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,484,498
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#446
of 630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,479
of 437,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 437,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.