↓ Skip to main content

Primary care characteristics and their association with health screening in a low-socioeconomic status public rental-flat population in Singapore- a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Primary care characteristics and their association with health screening in a low-socioeconomic status public rental-flat population in Singapore- a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0411-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang En Wee, Wen Qi Cher, David Sin, Zong Chen Li, Gerald Choon-Huat Koh

Abstract

In Singapore, subsidized primary care is provided by centralized polyclinics; since 2000, policies have allowed lower-income Singaporeans to utilize subsidies at private general-practitioner (GP) clinics. We sought to determine whether proximity to primary care, subsidised primary care, or having regular primary care associated with health screening participation in a low socioeconomic-status public rental-flat community in Singapore. From 2009-2014, residents in five public rental-flat enclaves (N = 936) and neighboring owner-occupied precincts (N = 1060) were assessed for participation in cardiovascular and cancer screening. We then evaluated whether proximity to primary care, subsidised primary care, or having regular primary care associated with improved adherence to health screening. We also investigated attitudes to health screening using qualitative methodology. In the rental flat population, for cardiovascular screening, regular primary care was independently associated with regular diabetes screening (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 1.59, CI = 1.12-2.26, p = 0.009) and hyperlipidemia screening (aOR = 1.82, CI = 1.10-3.04, p = 0.023). In the owner-occupied flats, regular primary care was independently associated with regular hypertension screening (aOR = 9.34 (1.82-47.85, p = 0.007), while subsidized primary care was associated with regular diabetes screening (aOR = 2.94, CI = 1.04-8.31, p = 0.042). For cancer screening, in the rental flat population, proximity to primary care was associated with less participation in regular colorectal cancer screening (aOR = 0.42, CI = 0.17-0.99, p = 0.049) and breast cancer screening (aOR = 0.29, CI = 0.10-0.84, p = 0.023). In the owner-occupied flat population, for gynecological cancer screening, usage of subsidized primary care and proximity to primary care was associated with higher rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer screening; however, being on regular primary care followup was associated with lower rates of mammography (aOR = 0.10, CI = 0.01-0.75, p = 0.025). On qualitative analysis, patients were discouraged from screening by distrust in the doctor-patient relationship; for cancer screening in particular, patients were discouraged by potential embarrassment. Regular primary care was independently associated with regular participation in cardiovascular screening in both low-SES and higher-SES communities. However, for cancer screening, in the low-SES community, proximity to primary care was associated with less participation in regular screening, while in the higher-SES community, regular primary care was associated with lower screening participation; possibly due to embarrassment regarding screening modalities.

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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 121 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 20%
Student > Master 19 16%
Researcher 14 11%
Other 6 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 43 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 46 38%
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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,953
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,616
of 406,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#23
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 406,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.