| Title |
A Review of Realizing the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Goals by 2030: Part 1- Status quo, Requirements, and Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-015-0254-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rada Hussein |
| Abstract |
This paper is the first part of a review of how to realize the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) goals by 2030. The objective of this review is to investigate the role of eHealth and technology in achieving UHC, focusing on four aspects: 1) identifying the importance of UHC and highlighting how UHC is influenced by health systems and eHealth, 2) investigating the current status of UHC worldwide and indicating the current challenges facing the realization of UHC, 3) reviewing the current research activities in the UHC domain and emphasizing the role of eHealth and technology in achieving UHC, and 4) discussing the results of the review to identify the current gaps in UHC implantation and the corresponding research lines for future investigation.This part covers the first two aspects through: providing the required background on UHC, highlighting the potential benefits of eHealth utilization in UHC, addressing the current status quo of UHC implementation worldwide, and finally concluding the lessons learned in terms of the UHC challenges and requirements.This part also described the used search methodology and selection criteria to synthesize this review. It also indicates the limitations of conducting a systematic review in this early stage of deploying UHC-oriented eHealth solutions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,200,383
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#629
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,920
of 268,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 268,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.