↓ Skip to main content

At the intersection of chronic disease, disability and health services research: A scoping literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Disability and Health Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
101 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.
Article details
Title
At the intersection of chronic disease, disability and health services research: A scoping literature review
Published in
Disability and Health Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.12.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is a concerted effort underway to evaluate and reform our nation's approach to the health of people with ongoing or elevated needs for care, particularly persons with chronic conditions and/or disabilities. This literature review characterizes the current state of knowledge on the measurement of chronic disease and disability in population-based health services research on working age adults (age 18-64). Scoping review methods were used to scan the health services research literature published since the year 2000, including medline, psycINFO and manual searches. The guiding question was: "How are chronic conditions and disability defined and measured in studies of healthcare access, quality, utilization or cost?" Fifty-five studies met the stated inclusion criteria. Chronic conditions were variously defined by brief lists of conditions, broader criteria-based lists, two or more (multiple) chronic conditions, or other constructs. Disability was generally assessed through ADLs/IADLs, functional limitations, activity limitations or program eligibility. A smaller subset of studies used information from both domains to identify a study population or to stratify it by subgroup. There remains a divide in this literature between studies that rely upon diagnostically-oriented measures and studies that instead rely on functional, activity or other constructs of disability to identify the population of interest. This leads to wide ranging differences in population prevalence and outcome estimates. However, there is also a growing effort to develop methods that account for the overlap between chronic disease and disability and to "segment" this heterogeneous population into policy or practice relevant subgroups.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 40 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Psychology 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 43 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#8,538,940
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Disability and Health Journal
#488
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,280
of 451,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disability and Health Journal
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 451,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.