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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reducing Health Inequities in the U.S. Recommendations From the NHLBI’s Health Inequities Think Tank Meeting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.04.059 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, Robert M. Kaplan, Richard S. Cooper, Ana V. Diez Roux, James S. Marks, Michael M. Engelgau, Emmanuel Peprah, Helena Mishoe, L. Ebony Boulware, Kaytura L. Felix, Robert M. Califf, John M. Flack, Lisa A. Cooper, J. Nadine Gracia, Jeffrey A. Henderson, Karina W. Davidson, Jerry A. Krishnan, Tené T. Lewis, Eduardo Sanchez, Naomi L. Luban, Viola Vaccarino, Winston F. Wong, Jackson T. Wright, David Meyers, Olugbenga G. Ogedegbe, Letitia Presley-Cantrell, David A. Chambers, Deshirée Belis, Glen C. Bennett, Josephine E. Boyington, Tony L. Creazzo, Janet M. de Jesus, Chitra Krishnamurti, Mia R. Lowden, Antonello Punturieri, Susan T. Shero, Neal S. Young, Shimian Zou, George A. Mensah |
| Abstract |
The National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a Think Tank meeting to obtain insight and recommendations regarding the objectives and design of the next generation of research aimed at reducing health inequities in the United States. The panel recommended several specific actions, including: 1) embrace broad and inclusive research themes; 2) develop research platforms that optimize the ability to conduct informative and innovative research, and promote systems science approaches; 3) develop networks of collaborators and stakeholders, and launch transformative studies that can serve as benchmarks; 4) optimize the use of new data sources, platforms, and natural experiments; and 5) develop unique transdisciplinary training programs to build research capacity. Confronting health inequities will require engaging multiple disciplines and sectors (including communities), using systems science, and intervening through combinations of individual, family, provider, health system, and community-targeted approaches. Details of the panel's remarks and recommendations are provided in this report. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 States | 6 | 60% |
| Georgia | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#894,051
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#2,240
of 16,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,547
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#39
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 381,036 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.