| Title |
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000028.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, Mark Petticrew, Joanne de Montigny, Erin Ueffing, Betsy Kristjansson, Jessie McGowan, Maria Benkhalti Jandu, George A Wells, Kevin Brand, Janet Smylie |
| Abstract |
Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009. The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| United States | 3 | 17% |
| Japan | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 17% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 235 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 18% |
| Researcher | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 17% |
| Unknown | 57 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 12% |
| Psychology | 15 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Unknown | 67 | 28% |
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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,620,871
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,213
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,448
of 191,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 191,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 72% of its contemporaries.