↓ Skip to main content

Disruption as opportunity: Impacts of an organizational health equity intervention in primary care clinics

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
314 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
Disruption as opportunity: Impacts of an organizational health equity intervention in primary care clinics
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0820-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette J. Browne, Colleen Varcoe, Marilyn Ford-Gilboe, C. Nadine Wathen, Victoria Smye, Beth E. Jackson, Bruce Wallace, Bernadette (Bernie) Pauly, Carol P. Herbert, Josée G. Lavoie, Sabrina T. Wong, Amelie Blanchet Garneau

Abstract

The health care sector has a significant role to play in fostering equity in the context of widening global social and health inequities. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the process and impacts of implementing an organizational-level health equity intervention aimed at enhancing capacity to provide equity-oriented health care. The theoretically-informed and evidence-based intervention known as 'EQUIP' included educational components for staff, and the integration of three key dimensions of equity-oriented care: cultural safety, trauma- and violence-informed care, and tailoring to context. The intervention was implemented at four Canadian primary health care clinics committed to serving marginalized populations including people living in poverty, those facing homelessness, and people living with high levels of trauma, including Indigenous peoples, recent immigrants and refugees. A mixed methods design was used to examine the impacts of the intervention on the clinics' organizational processes and priorities, and on staff. Engagement with the EQUIP intervention prompted increased awareness and confidence related to equity-oriented health care among staff. Importantly, the EQUIP intervention surfaced tensions that mirrored those in the wider community, including those related to racism, the impacts of violence and trauma, and substance use issues. Surfacing these tensions was disruptive but led to focused organizational strategies, for example: working to address structural and interpersonal racism; improving waiting room environments; and changing organizational policies and practices to support harm reduction. The impact of the intervention was enhanced by involving staff from all job categories, developing narratives about the socio-historical context of the communities and populations served, and feeding data back to the clinics about key health issues in the patient population (e.g., levels of depression, trauma symptoms, and chronic pain). However, in line with critiques of complex interventions, EQUIP may not have been maximally disruptive. Organizational characteristics (e.g., funding and leadership) and characteristics of intervention delivery (e.g., timeframe and who delivered the intervention components) shaped the process and impact. This analysis suggests that organizations should anticipate and plan for various types of disruptions, while maximizing opportunities for ownership of the intervention by those within the organization. Our findings further suggest that equity-oriented interventions be paced for intense delivery over a relatively short time frame, be evaluated, particularly with data that can be made available on an ongoing basis, and explicitly include a harm reduction lens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 314 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 314 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 15%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Researcher 22 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 60 19%
Unknown 106 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 62 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 14%
Social Sciences 33 11%
Psychology 15 5%
Arts and Humanities 9 3%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 116 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 18 August 2022.
All research outputs
#687,783
of 24,860,845 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#72
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,070
of 347,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#5
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,860,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 347,226 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 92% of its contemporaries.