↓ Skip to main content

Limited evidence to assess the impact of primary health care system or service level attributes on health outcomes of Indigenous people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Limited evidence to assess the impact of primary health care system or service level attributes on health outcomes of Indigenous people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0803-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Odette R Gibson, Leonie Segal

Abstract

To describe reported studies of the impact on HbA1C levels, diabetes-related hospitalisations, and other primary care health endpoints of initiatives aimed at improving the management of diabetes in Indigenous adult populations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Systematic literature review using data sources of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL and PsycInfo from January 1985 to March 2012. Inclusion criteria were a clearly described primary care intervention, model of care or service, delivered to Indigenous adults with type 2 diabetes reporting a program impact on at least one quantitative diabetes-related health outcome, and where results were reported separately for Indigenous persons. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess the study quality. PRISMA guidelines were used for reporting. The search strategy retrieved 2714 articles. Of these, 13 studies met the review inclusion criteria. Three levels of primary care initiatives were identified: 1) addition of a single service component to the existing service, 2) system-level improvement processes to enhance the quality of diabetes care, 3) change in primary health funding to support better access to care. Initiatives included in the review were diverse and included comprehensive multi-disciplinary diabetes care, specific workforce development, systematic foot care and intensive individual hypertension management. Twelve studies reported HbA1C, of those one also reported hospitalisations and one reported the incidence of lower limb amputation. The methodological quality of the four comparable cohort and seven observational studies was good, and moderate for the two randomised control trials. The current literature provides an inadequate evidence base for making important policy and practice decisions in relation to primary care initiatives for Indigenous persons with type 2 diabetes. This reflects a very small number of published studies, the general reliance on intermediate health outcomes and the predominance of observational studies. Additional studies of the impacts of primary care need to consider carefully research design and the reporting of hospital outcomes or other primary end points. This is an important question for policy makers and further high quality research is needed to contribute to an evidence-base to inform decision making.

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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Unspecified 21 12%
Student > Master 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 30%
Unspecified 21 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 49 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,807,732
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,362
of 7,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,674
of 264,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#64
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.