↓ Skip to main content

Visual Health and Visual Healthcare Access in Refugees and Displaced Persons: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Visual Health and Visual Healthcare Access in Refugees and Displaced Persons: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10903-018-0766-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sila Bal, Anne Duckles, Alison Buttenheim

Abstract

Vision impairment is a significant global health concern. Still, there remains a gap in our knowledge of visual health in refugees. We conducted a systematic review of the distinctive eye care needs of refugees. We screened PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science through February 17, 2017 for studies that focused primarily on visual health in refugees. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tools. 26 studies were included in the final review. The prevalence of blindness ranged from 1.3 to 26.2%. Trachoma was the leading infectious cause. Only four studies assessed vision-related care. Time/location of displacement, social unrest, and sanitation impacted severity of eye disease. Refugees have unique eye care needs. Public health interventions should target eye care at every stage of displacement. Providers may use these results to inform future research and improve visual healthcare access in refugee groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Psychology 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,256,102
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#258
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,025
of 333,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 333,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.