↓ Skip to main content

Measuring self-rated health status among resettled adult refugee populations to inform practice and policy – a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Measuring self-rated health status among resettled adult refugee populations to inform practice and policy – a scoping review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2771-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Dowling, Joanne Enticott, Grant Russell

Abstract

The health status of refugees is a significant factor in determining their success in resettlement and relies heavily on self-rated measures of refugee health. The selection of robust and appropriate self-rated health measurement tools is challenging due to the number and methodological variation in the use of assessment tools across refugee health studies. This study describes the existing self-report health measures which have been used in studies of adult refugees living in the community to allow us to address the challenges of selecting appropriate assessments to measure health within refugee groups. Electronic databases of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Embase and Scopus. This review identified 45 different self-rated health measurements in 183 studies. Most of the studies were cross sectional explorations of the mental health status of refugees living in community settings within Western nations. A third of the tools were designed specifically for use within refugee populations. More than half of the identified measurement tools have been evaluated for reliability and/or validity within refugee populations. Much variation was found in the selection, development and testing of measurement tools across the reviewed studies. This review shows that there are currently a number of reliable and valid tools available for use in refugee health research; however, further work is required to achieve consistency in the quality and in the use of these tools. Methodological guidelines are required to assist researchers and clinicians in the development and testing of self-rated health measurement tools for use in refugee research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Psychology 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#16,037,367
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,838
of 8,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,604
of 448,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#94
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 448,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.