↓ Skip to main content

Bringing stakeholders together for urban health equity: hallmarks of a compromised process

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Bringing stakeholders together for urban health equity: hallmarks of a compromised process
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0252-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy S. Katz, Rebecca M. Cheff, Patricia O’Campo

Abstract

There is a global trend towards the use of ad hoc participation processes that seek to engage grassroots stakeholders in decisions related to municipal infrastructure, land use and services. We present the results of a scholarly literature review examining 14 articles detailing specific cases of these processes to contribute to the discussion regarding their utility in advancing health equity. We explore hallmarks of compromised processes, potential harms to grassroots stakeholders, and potential mitigating factors. We conclude that participation processes often cut off participation following the planning phase at the point of implementation, limiting convener accountability to grassroots stakeholders, and, further, that where participation processes yield gains, these are often due to independent grassroots action. Given the emphasis on participation in health equity discourse, this study seeks to provide a real world exploration of the pitfalls and potential harms of participation processes that is relevant to health equity theory and practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 23 23%
Psychology 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Decision Sciences 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 17 July 2019.
All research outputs
#766,157
of 22,547,209 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#84
of 1,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,790
of 408,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#4
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,547,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 408,131 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.