↓ Skip to main content

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2020
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12939-019-1103-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Maria Panagioti, Gavin Daker-White, Sally Giles, Lisa Riste, Sue Kirk, Bie Nio Ong, Aaron Poppleton, Stephen Campbell, Caroline Sanders

Abstract

Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising. Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day. The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n = 46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors. This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks. Not applicable for a scoping review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 77 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 14%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 8 4%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 90 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,957,659
of 25,853,983 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#295
of 2,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,999
of 483,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,853,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,274 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 87% 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 483,764 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.