↓ Skip to main content

Economic interventions to improve population health: a scoping study of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Economic interventions to improve population health: a scoping study of systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3119-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mishal S. Khan, Bernie Y. Guan, Jananie Audimulam, Francisco Cervero Liceras, Richard J. Coker, Joanne Yoong

Abstract

Recognizing the close relationship between poverty and health, national program managers, policy-makers and donors are increasingly including economic interventions as part of their core strategies to improve population health. However, there is often confusion among stakeholders about the definitions and operational differences between distinct types of economic interventions and financial instruments, which can lead to important differences in interpretation and expectations. We conducted a scoping study to define and clarify concepts underlying key economic interventions - price interventions (taxes and subsidies), income transfer programs, incentive programs, livelihood support programs and health-related financial services - and map the evidence currently available from systematic reviews. We identified 195 systematic reviews on economic interventions published between 2005 and July 2015. Overall, there was an increase in the number of reviews published after 2010. The majority of reviews focused on price interventions, income transfer programs and incentive programs, with much less evidence available from systematic reviews on livelihood support programs and health-related financial services. We also identified a lack of evidence on: health outcomes in low income countries; unintended or perverse outcomes; implementation challenges; scalability and cost-effectiveness of economic interventions. We conclude that while more research is clearly needed to assess suitability and effectiveness of economic interventions in different contexts, before interventions are tested and further systematic reviews conducted, a consistent and accurate understanding of the fundamental differences in terminology and approaches is essential among researchers, public health policy makers and program planners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 9%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 41 37%
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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,343,972
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,127
of 17,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,787
of 372,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#100
of 338 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 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 17,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 372,377 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 338 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.