↓ Skip to main content

What is the overall impact or effectiveness of visiting primary health care services in rural and remote communities in high-income countries? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
What is the overall impact or effectiveness of visiting primary health care services in rural and remote communities in high-income countries? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3269-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy A. Carey, David Sirett, Deborah Russell, John S. Humphreys, John Wakerman

Abstract

Visiting services address the problem of workforce deficit and access to effective primary health care services in isolated remote and rural locations. Little is known about their impact or effectiveness and thereby the extent to which they are helping to reduce the disparity in access and health outcomes between people living in remote areas compared with people living in urban regions of Australia. The objective of this study was to answer the question "What is the impact or effectiveness when different types of primary health care services visit, rather than reside in, rural and remote communities?" We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases. We also searched relevant websites for 'grey' literature and contacted several key informants to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were reviewed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Initially, 345 papers were identified and, from this selection, 17 papers were considered relevant for inclusion. Following full paper review, another ten papers were excluded leaving seven papers that provided some information about the impact or effectiveness of visiting services. The papers varied with regard to study design (ranging from cluster randomised controlled trials to a case study), research quality, and the strength of their conclusions. In relation to effectiveness or impact, results were mixed. There was a lack of consistent data regarding the features or characteristics of visiting services that enhance their effectiveness or impact. Almost invariably the evaluations assessed the service provided but only two papers mentioned any aspect of the visiting features within which service provision occurred such as who did the visiting and how often they visited. There is currently an inadequate evidence base from which to make decisions about the effectiveness of visiting services or how visiting services should be structured in order to achieve better health outcomes for people living in remote and rural areas. Given this knowledge gap, we suggest that more rigorous evaluation of visiting services in meeting community health needs is required, and that evaluation should be guided by a number of salient principles.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Social Sciences 2 25%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#11,723,222
of 13,205,256 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,079
of 4,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,446
of 268,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,205,256 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them