↓ Skip to main content

Exacerbating Inequalities? Health Policy and the Behavioural Sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 326)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Exacerbating Inequalities? Health Policy and the Behavioural Sciences
Published in
Health Care Analysis, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10728-018-0357-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn MacKay, Muireann Quigley

Abstract

There have been calls for some time for a new approach to public health in the United Kingdom and beyond. This is consequent on the recognition and acceptance that health problems often have a complex and multi-faceted aetiology. At the same time, policies which utilise insights from research in behavioural economics and psychology ('behavioural science') have gained prominence on the political agenda. The relationship between the social determinants of health (SDoH) and behavioural science in health policy has not hitherto been explored. Given the on-going presence of strategies based on findings from behavioural science in policy-making on the political agenda, an examination of this is warranted. This paper begins by looking at the place of the SDoH within public health, before outlining, in brief, the recent drive towards utilising behavioural science to formulate law and public policy. We then examine the relationship between this and the SDoH. We argue that behavioural public health policy is, to a certain extent, blind to the social and other determinants of health. In section three, we examine ways in which such policies may perpetuate and/or exacerbate health inequities and social injustices. We argue that problems in this respect may be compounded by assumptions and practices which are built into some behavioural science methodologies. We also argue that incremental individual gains may not be enough. As such, population-level measures are sometimes necessary. In section four we defend this contention, arguing that an equitable and justifiable public health requires such measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 38 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 19 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,141,204
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#13
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,369
of 343,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 343,250 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.