↓ Skip to main content

Indicators and measurement tools for health system integration: a knowledge synthesis protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Indicators and measurement tools for health system integration: a knowledge synthesis protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0090-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nelly D. Oelke, Esther Suter, Maria Alice Dias da Silva Lima, Cheryl Van Vliet-Brown

Abstract

Health system integration is a key component of health system reform with the goal of improving outcomes for patients, providers, and the health system. Although health systems continue to strive for better integration, current delivery of health services continues to be fragmented. A key gap in the literature is the lack of information on what successful integration looks like and how to measure achievement towards an integrated system. This multi-site study protocol builds on a prior knowledge synthesis completed by two of the primary investigators which identified 10 key principles that collectively support health system integration. The aim is to answer two research questions: What are appropriate indicators for each of the 10 key integration principles developed in our previous knowledge synthesis and what measurement tools are used to measure these indicators? To enhance generalizability of the findings, a partnership between Canada and Brazil was created as health system integration is a priority in both countries and they share similar contexts. This knowledge synthesis will follow an iterative scoping review process with emerging information from knowledge-user engagement leading to the refinement of research questions and study selection. This paper describes the methods for each phase of the study. Research questions were developed with stakeholder input. Indicator identification and prioritization will utilize a modified Delphi method and patient/user focus groups. Based on priority indicators, a search of the literature will be completed and studies screened for inclusion. Quality appraisal of relevant studies will be completed prior to data extraction. Results will be used to develop recommendations and key messages to be presented through integrated and end-of-grant knowledge translation strategies with researchers and knowledge-users from the three jurisdictions. This project will directly benefit policy and decision-makers by providing an easy accessible set of indicators and tools to measure health system integration across different contexts and cultures. Being able to evaluate the success of integration strategies and initiatives will lead to better health system design and improved health outcomes for patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 16 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,815
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,590
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,880
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 263,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.