| Title |
Evaluating the impact of equity focused health impact assessment on health service planning: three case studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-371 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ben Harris-Roxas, Fiona Haigh, Joanne Travaglia, Lynn Kemp |
| Abstract |
Health impact assessment has been identified internationally as a mechanism to ensure potential health impacts and health equity impacts of proposals are considered before implementation. This paper looks at the impact of three equity focused health impact assessments (EFHIAs) of health service plans on subsequent decision-making and implementation, and then utilises these findings to test and refine an existing conceptual framework for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of health impact assessments for use in relation to EFHIAs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 21% |
| Canada | 2 | 14% |
| Denmark | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Scientists | 4 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,867,327
of 24,203,404 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,721
of 8,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,630
of 242,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#24
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,203,404 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 242,793 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 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.