↓ Skip to main content

Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
195 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Chronic morbidity, deprivation and primary medical care spending in England in 2015-16: a cross-sectional spatial analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0996-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Mamas A. Mamas, Harm van Marwijk, Andrew M. Ryan, Peter Bower, Bruce Guthrie, Tim Doran

Abstract

Primary care provides the foundation for most modern health-care systems, and in the interests of equity, it should be resourced according to local need. We aimed to describe spatially the burden of chronic conditions and primary medical care funding in England at a low geographical level, and to measure how much variation in funding is explained by chronic condition prevalence and other patient and regional factors. We used multiple administrative data sets including chronic condition prevalence and management data (2014/15), funding for primary-care practices (2015-16), and geographical and area deprivation data (2015). Data were assigned to a low geographical level (average 1500 residents). We investigated the overall morbidity burden across 19 chronic conditions and its regional variation, spatial clustering and association with funding and area deprivation. A linear regression model was used to explain local variation in spending using patient demographics, morbidity, deprivation and regional characteristics. Levels of morbidity varied within and between regions, with several clusters of very high morbidity identified. At the regional level, morbidity was modestly associated with practice funding, with the North East and North West appearing underfunded. The regression model explained 39% of the variability in practice funding, but even after adjusting for covariates, a large amount of variability in funding existed across regions. High morbidity and, especially, rural location were very strongly associated with higher practice funding, while associations were more modest for high deprivation and older age. Primary care funding in England does not adequately reflect the contemporary morbidity burden. More equitable resource allocation could be achieved by making better use of routinely available information and big data resources. Similar methods could be deployed in other countries where comparable data are collected, to identify morbidity clusters and to target funding to areas of greater need.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 195 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Psychology 5 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#230,032
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#199
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,682
of 455,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 455,264 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.