↓ Skip to main content

Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: a national survey

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2011
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 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
Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: a national survey
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-10-45
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolette F Sheridan, Timothy W Kenealy, Martin J Connolly, Faith Mahony, P Alan Barber, Mary Anne Boyd, Peter Carswell, Janet Clinton, Gerard Devlin, Robert Doughty, Lorna Dyall, Ngaire Kerse, John Kolbe, Ross Lawrenson, Allan Moffitt

Abstract

In all countries people experience different social circumstances that result in avoidable differences in health. In New Zealand, Māori, Pacific peoples, and those with lower socioeconomic status experience higher levels of chronic illness, which is the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and inequitable health outcomes. Whilst the health system can enable a fairer distribution of good health, limited national data is available to measure health equity. Therefore, we sought to find out whether health services in New Zealand were equitable by measuring the level of development of components of chronic care management systems across district health boards. Variation in provision by geography, condition or ethnicity can be interpreted as inequitable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 319 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 19%
Student > Postgraduate 46 14%
Student > Master 32 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 9%
Researcher 21 6%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 91 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 19%
Social Sciences 34 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 2%
Other 44 13%
Unknown 98 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,281,025
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#604
of 2,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,336
of 151,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,230 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 151,256 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.