↓ Skip to main content

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D Oxman, John N Lavis, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article we address considerations of equity. Inequities can be defined as "differences in health which are not only unnecessary and avoidable but, in addition, are considered unfair and unjust". These have been well documented in relation to social and economic factors. Policies or programmes that are effective can improve the overall health of a population. However, the impact of such policies and programmes on inequities may vary: they may have no impact on inequities, they may reduce inequities, or they may exacerbate them, regardless of their overall effects on population health. We suggest four questions that can be considered when using research evidence to inform considerations of the potential impact a policy or programme option is likely to have on disadvantaged groups, and on equity in a specific setting. These are: 1. Which groups or settings are likely to be disadvantaged in relation to the option being considered? 2. Are there plausible reasons for anticipating differences in the relative effectiveness of the option for disadvantaged groups or settings? 3. Are there likely to be different baseline conditions across groups or settings such that that the absolute effectiveness of the option would be different, and the problem more or less important, for disadvantaged groups or settings? 4. Are there important considerations that should be made when implementing the option in order to ensure that inequities are reduced, if possible, and that they are not increased?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
Canada 3 2%
United States 3 2%
South Africa 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 167 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Other 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 44 24%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 38%
Social Sciences 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Arts and Humanities 7 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 31 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,819,226
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#244
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,657
of 163,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 163,433 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.