↓ Skip to main content

Applications of the Capability Approach in the Health Field: A Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in Social Indicators Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Applications of the Capability Approach in the Health Field: A Literature Review
Published in
Social Indicators Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11205-016-1356-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Mark Mitchell, Tracy E. Roberts, Pelham M. Barton, Joanna Coast

Abstract

The primary aims of this review are to document capability applications in the health field and to explore the objectives and decision-rules of studies measuring capability more broadly. Relevant studies are identified using a literature search strategy known as "comprehensive pearl growing". All studies with a primary focus on health are assessed individually, whilst a summary narrative analysis of the full review examines the objectives of capability studies. Four distinct groups in the health field are identified in the review: (1) physical activity and diet; (2) patient empowerment; (3) multidimensional poverty and (4) assessments of health and social care interventions. Different approaches to applying mixed methods, selecting capability dimensions and weighting capabilities are found across studies. There is a noticeable non-reliance on health status as a sole indicator of capability in health. In terms of objectives of studies measuring capability, although there is a lack of consistency, an objective related to sufficiency of capabilities appeared most often in the studies found in this review. Even though one of the appeals of the capability perspective is its underspecified nature, this review highlights the challenge of finding a coherent alternative to more established approaches of evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 22%
Student > Master 41 19%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 45 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 58 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Computer Science 10 5%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 52 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,904,864
of 24,938,276 outputs
Outputs from Social Indicators Research
#176
of 1,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,283
of 311,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Indicators Research
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,938,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 311,272 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.