↓ Skip to main content

Critical considerations for the practical utility of health equity tools: a concept mapping study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Critical considerations for the practical utility of health equity tools: a concept mapping study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0764-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernadette Pauly, Wanda Martin, Kathleen Perkin, Thea van Roode, Albert Kwan, Tobie Patterson, Samantha Tong, Cheryl Prescott, Bruce Wallace, Trevor Hancock, Marjorie MacDonald

Abstract

Promoting health equity within health systems is a priority and challenge worldwide. Health equity tools have been identified as one strategy for integrating health equity considerations into health systems. Although there has been a proliferation of health equity tools, there has been limited attention to evaluating these tools for their practicality and thus their likelihood for uptake. Within the context of a large program of research, the Equity Lens in Public Health (ELPH), we conducted a concept mapping study to identify key elements and themes related to public health leaders and practitioners' views about what makes a health equity tool practical and useful. Concept mapping is a participatory mixed-method approach to generating ideas and concepts to address a common concern. Participants brainstormed responses to the prompt "To be useful, a health equity tool should…" After participants sorted responses into groups based on similarity and rated them for importance and feasibility, the statements were analyzed using multidimensional scaling, then grouped using cluster analysis. Pattern matching graphs were constructed to illustrate the relationship between the importance and feasibility of statements, and go-zone maps were created to guide subsequent action. The process resulted in 67 unique statements that were grouped into six clusters: 1) Evaluation for Improvement; 2) User Friendliness; 3) Explicit Theoretical Background; 4) Templates and Tools 5) Equity Competencies; and 6) Nothing about Me without Me- Client Engaged. The result was a set of concepts and themes describing participants' views of the practicality and usefulness of health equity tools. These thematic clusters highlight the importance of user friendliness and having user guides, templates and resources to enhance use of equity tools. Furthermore, participants' indicated that practicality was not enough for a tool to be useful. In addition to practical characteristics of the tool, a useful tool is one that encourages and supports the development of practitioner competencies to engage in equity work including critical reflections on power and institutional culture as well as strategies for the involvement of community members impacted by health inequities in program planning and delivery. The results of this study will be used to inform the development of practical criteria to assess health equity tools for application in public health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 31 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Psychology 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 32 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,501,331
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#829
of 1,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,554
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#34
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 326,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.