↓ Skip to main content

Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
60 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2969-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Elizabeth Snow, Katherine Tweedie, Ann Pederson

Abstract

Recently, patient engagement has been identified as a promising strategy for supporting healthcare planning. However, the context and structure of universalistic, "one-size-fits-all" approaches often used for patient engagement may not enable diverse patients to participate in decision-making about programs intended to meet their needs. Specifically, standard patient engagement approaches are gender-blind and might not facilitate the engagement of those marginalized by, for example, substance use, low income, experiences of violence, homelessness, and/or mental health challenges-highly gendered health and social experiences. The project's purpose was to develop a heuristic model to assist planners to engage patients who are not traditionally included in healthcare planning. Using a qualitative research approach, we reviewed literature and conducted interviews with patients and healthcare planners regarding engaging marginalized populations in health services planning. From these inputs, we created a model and planning manual to assist healthcare planners to engage marginalized patients in health services planning, which we piloted in two clinical programs undergoing health services design. The findings from the pilots were used to refine the model. The analysis of the interviews and literature identified power and gender as barriers to participation, and generated suggestions to support diverse populations both to attend patient engagement events and to participate meaningfully. Engaging marginalized populations cannot be reduced to a single defined process, but instead needs to be understood as an iterative process of fitting engagement methods to a particular situation. Underlying this process are principles for meaningfully engaging marginalized people in healthcare planning. A one-size-fits-all approach to patient engagement is not appropriate given patients' diverse barriers to meaningful participation in healthcare planning. Instead, planners need a repertoire of skills and strategies to align the purpose of engagement with the capacities and needs of patient participants. Just as services need to meet diverse patients' needs, so too must patient engagement experiences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 42 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Psychology 7 6%
Design 6 5%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 46 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 22 December 2023.
All research outputs
#895,233
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#215
of 8,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,057
of 340,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 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 8,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 340,218 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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.