↓ Skip to main content

How Do Allied Health Professionals Define and Apply Equity When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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.
Title
How Do Allied Health Professionals Define and Apply Equity When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?
Published in
International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services, March 2018
DOI 10.1177/0020731418762721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haylee Lane, Tamica Sturgess, Kathleen Philip, Donna Markham, Jill Walsh, Wendy Hubbard, Jennifer Martin, Terry Haines

Abstract

An ethnographic study was conducted in 2 stages to understand how allied health professionals define and apply equity when making resource allocation decisions. Participants were allied health managers and clinicians from Victoria, Australia. Stage 1 included 4 semi-structured forums that incorporated real-life case studies, group discussions, and hypothetical scenarios. The project's steering committee began a thematic analysis during post-forum discussions. Stage 2 included a key stakeholder working party that further discussed the concept of equity. The forum recordings were transcribed verbatim, and a detailed thematic analysis ensured the initial thematic analysis was complete. Several domains of equity were discussed. Participants would readily identify that equity was a consideration when making resource decisions but were generally silent for a prolonged period when prompted to identify what they meant when using this term. The findings indicate that asking allied health professionals to directly state how they define and apply equity to their decision-making could be too difficult a task, as this did not elicit rich and meaningful discussions. Future research should examine individual domains of equity when applied to resource allocation decisions.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 23%
Arts and Humanities 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services
#906
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,679
of 345,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 345,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.