↓ Skip to main content

Debate: can we achieve universal health coverage without a focus on disability?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Debate: can we achieve universal health coverage without a focus on disability?
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3547-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Kuper, Johanna Hanefeld

Abstract

The achievement of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a key aim of the global health agenda, and an important target of the Sustainable Development Goals. There is increasing recognition that some groups may fall behind in efforts to achieve UHC, including the 1 billion people globally living with disabilities. A fundamental question for debate is - can UHC be achieved without the inclusion of people with disabilities? People with disabilities are more likely to experience poor health. They will therefore have greater need for general healthcare services, as well as rehabilitation and specialist services, related to their underlying impairment. People with disabilities also frequently face additional difficulties in accessing healthcare, incur greater costs when seeking healthcare and often report experiencing worse quality services than others. As a consequence of these different challenges, people with disabilities face specific and added difficulties across three dimensions of UHC: coverage, access to services needed, and at reasonable cost. A focus on people with disabilities is therefore essential to achieving UHC, particularly since they constitute 15% of the global population. To ensure the realisation of UHC is inclusive of and addresses the needs of people with disabilities, health systems need to adapt. A twin-tracked approach is recommended, which means that there is a focus on including people with disabilities in mainstream services, as well as targeting them with specific services needed. There also must be efforts to improve the quality of services (e.g. through healthcare staff training) and enhance cost protection for people with disabilities (e.g. through social protection). A key challenge to changing UHC strategies to be more inclusive is the lack of evidence on what is needed and works, and more research is needed urgently on this topic. It will be difficult to achieve UHC without a focus on people with disabilities. Changes made to improve coverage for people with disabilities will likely benefit a wider group, including older people, ethnic minorities, and people with short-term functional difficulties. Disability-inclusive strategies will therefore improve health system equity and ensure that we "Leave no one behind" as we move towards UHC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 23%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 34%
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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,462,559
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,104
of 8,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,721
of 344,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#67
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 344,863 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 164 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 59% of its contemporaries.