↓ Skip to main content

Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence on non-financial access barriers: implications for assessment at the district level

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence on non-financial access barriers: implications for assessment at the district level
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0181-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas S. O’Connell, K. Juliet A. Bedford, Michael Thiede, Di McIntyre

Abstract

A key element of the global drive to universal health coverage is ensuring access to needed health services for everyone, and to pursue this goal in an equitable way. This requires concerted efforts to reduce disparities in access through understanding and acting on barriers facing communities with the lowest utilisation levels. Financial barriers dominate the empirical literature on health service access. Unless the full range of access barriers are investigated, efforts to promote equitable access to health care are unlikely to succeed. This paper therefore focuses on exploring the nature and extent of non-financial access barriers. We draw upon two structured literature reviews on barriers to access and utilization of maternal, newborn and child health services in Ghana, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Rwanda. One review analyses access barriers identified in published literature using qualitative research methods; the other in published literature using quantitative analysis of household survey data. We then synthesised the key qualitative and quantitative findings through a conjoint iterative analysis. Five dominant themes on non-financial access barriers were identified: ethnicity; religion; physical accessibility; decision-making, gender and autonomy; and knowledge, information and education. The analysis highlighted that non-financial factors pose considerable barriers to access, many of which relate to the acceptability dimension of access and are challenging to address. Another key finding is that quantitative research methods, while yielding important findings, are inadequate for understanding non-financial access barriers in sufficient detail to develop effective responses. Qualitative research is critical in filling this gap. The analysis also indicates that the nature of non-financial access barriers vary considerably, not only between countries but also between different communities within individual countries. To adequately understand access barriers as a basis for developing effective strategies to address them, mixed-methods approaches are required. From an equity perspective, communities with the lowest utilisation levels should be prioritised and the access barriers specific to that community identified. It is, therefore, critical to develop approaches that can be used at the district level to diagnose and act upon access barriers if we are to pursue an equitable path to universal health coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 172 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 44 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 23%
Social Sciences 28 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Psychology 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 52 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 11 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,922,559
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#299
of 2,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,698
of 272,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,204 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 272,837 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.