↓ Skip to main content

How can collaboration be strengthened between public health and primary care? A Dutch multiple case study in seven neighbourhoods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
How can collaboration be strengthened between public health and primary care? A Dutch multiple case study in seven neighbourhoods
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2307-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilse Storm, Anke van Gestel, Ien van de Goor, Hans van Oers

Abstract

Although public health and primary care share the goal of promoting the health and wellbeing of the public, the two health sectors find it difficult to develop mutually integrated plans and to collaborate with each other. The aim of this multiple case study was to compare seven neighbourhoods in which a stepwise approach based on two central tools (district health profile and policy dialogue) was used to develop integrated district plans and promote collaboration. The stepwise approach involved the following steps: 1 Getting to know the neighbourhood, 2 Assembling the workgroup, 3 Analysing the neighbourhood, 4 Developing a district health profile, 5 Preparing policy dialogue, 6 Holding local dialogues, 7 Embedding integrated district plans and collaboration. To supervise this process, a core team was assembled for each neighbourhood, consisting of people drawn from both public health and primary care. Both the use of the two tools and the collaboration were studied by means of documentary analysis, interviews, questionnaires and observations. The seven neighbourhoods differed in the way the two tools of the stepwise approach were used: general versus focused profiles, the actors involved, the aims of the dialogue or the intensity of the steps. There were also similarities: profile indicators (e.g., population prognosis, vulnerability) and dialogue themes (e.g., obesity, social cohesion). The local actors experienced that the combination of both tools facilitates the process of bringing public health and primary care closer together, and that it is essential to invest sufficiently in the integration of profile data and in involving appropriate actors in the dialogue (e.g., GPs, residents). Collaboration was perceived as positive (e.g., feels involved, focus on consensus), but a starting process. Local actors also believe that the stepwise approach supported the process. A stepwise approach involving the combined use of district health profiles and policy dialogues promotes the integrated planning of health activities and facilitates collaboration between public health and primary care at the local level. Local differences may arise in the intensity and form of the various steps, but because they are practical and clearly defined, they remain transferrable to other neighbourhoods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,791,627
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,195
of 14,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,755
of 274,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#57
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 274,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.