↓ Skip to main content

Equity of access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations: the IMPACT international online survey of innovations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 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
Equity of access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations: the IMPACT international online survey of innovations
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0351-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauralie Richard, John Furler, Konstancja Densley, Jeannie Haggerty, Grant Russell, Jean-Frederic Levesque, Jane Gunn

Abstract

Improving access to primary healthcare (PHC) for vulnerable populations is important for achieving health equity, yet this remains challenging. Evidence of effective interventions is rather limited and fragmented. We need to identify innovative ways to improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations, and to clarify which elements of health systems, organisations or services (supply-side dimensions of access) and abilities of patients or populations (demand-side dimensions of access) need to be strengthened to achieve transformative change. The work reported here was conducted as part of IMPACT (Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation), a 5-year Canadian-Australian research program aiming to identify, implement and trial best practice interventions to improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations. We undertook an environmental scan as a broad screening approach to identify the breadth of current innovations from the field. We distributed a brief online survey to an international audience of PHC researchers, practitioners, policy makers and stakeholders using a combined email and social media approach. Respondents were invited to describe a program, service, approach or model of care that they considered innovative in helping vulnerable populations to get access to PHC. We used descriptive statistics to characterise the innovations and conducted a qualitative framework analysis to further examine the text describing each innovation. Seven hundred forty-four responses were recorded over a 6-week period. 240 unique examples of innovations originating from 14 countries were described, the majority from Canada and Australia. Most interventions targeted a diversity of population groups, were government funded and delivered in a community health, General Practice or outreach clinic setting. Interventions were mainly focused on the health sector and directed at organisational and/or system level determinants of access (supply-side). Few innovations were developed to enhance patients' or populations' abilities to access services (demand-side), and rarely did initiatives target both supply- and demand-side determinants of access. A wide range of innovations improving access to PHC were identified. The access framework was useful in uncovering the disparity between supply- and demand-side dimensions and pinpointing areas which could benefit from further attention to close the equity gap for vulnerable populations in accessing PHC services that correspond to their needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 381 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 12%
Researcher 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 32 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 6%
Other 61 16%
Unknown 105 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 92 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 17%
Social Sciences 40 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 3%
Psychology 9 2%
Other 54 14%
Unknown 113 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,379,519
of 24,353,295 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#399
of 2,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,481
of 305,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,353,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,086 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 well, scoring higher than 80% 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 305,567 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.