| Title |
Migrant Healthcare Guidelines: A Systematic Quality Assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-018-0759-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric Nwachukwu Agbata, Paulina Fuentes Padilla, Ifeoma Nwando Agbata, Laura Hidalgo Armas, Ivan Solà, Kevin Pottie, Pablo Alonso-Coello |
| Abstract |
Significant international and cross-border migration has led to a growing availability of migrant healthcare guidelines (MHGs), which we systematically reviewed for quality. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychINFO and guideline developer/guideline databases were searched for MHGs published 2006-2016. Three independent reviewers assessed eligible MHGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument (AGREE II). MHGs were identified as high quality if they had a score of ≥ 60% in at least three of the six domains, including "rigour of development", and overall quality was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale. We included 32 MHGs. Overall agreement between reviewers was very good. Mean scores for each AGREE II domain were as follows: 85 ± 19.0% for "scope and purpose"; 51 ± 30.5% for "stakeholder involvement"; 34 ± 31.9% for "rigour of development"; 86 ± 7.3% for "clarity of presentation"; 40 ± 23.6% for "applicability"; and 27 ± 38.5% for "editorial independence". Nine and six MHGs were deemed "recommended" or "recommended with modifications", respectively, and 17 were "not recommended". Our review of MHGs has highlighted critical deficiencies in rigour of development, applicability, editorial independence and stakeholder involvement that point to the need for improvements in future MHGs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,188,009
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#913
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,184
of 333,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#29
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 333,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.