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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Searching for best practices of youth friendly services - a study protocol using qualitative comparative analysis in Sweden
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-016-1570-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| URN |
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-125946
|
| Authors |
Isabel Goicolea, Monica Christianson, Anna-Karin Hurtig, Bruno Marchal, Miguel San Sebastian, Maria Wiklund |
| Abstract |
Swedish youth clinics constitute one of the most comprehensive and consolidated examples of a nationwide network of health care services for young people. However, studies evaluating their 'youth-friendliness' and the combination of factors that makes them more or less 'youth-friendly' have not been conducted. This protocol will scrutinise the current youth-friendliness of youth clinics in northern Sweden and identify the best combination of conditions needed in order to implement the criteria of youth-friendliness within Swedish youth clinics and elsewhere. In this study, we will use qualitative comparative analysis to analyse the conditions that are sufficient and/or necessary to implement Youth Friendly Health Services in 20 selected youth-clinics (cases). In order to conduct Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we will first identify the outcomes and the conditions to be assessed. The overall outcome - youth-friendliness - will be assessed together with specific outcomes for each of the five domains - accessible, acceptable, equitable, appropriate and effective. This will be done using a questionnaire to be applied to a sample of young people coming to the youth clinics. In terms of conditions, we will first identify what might be the key conditions, to ensure the youth friendliness of health care services, through literature review, interviews with professionals working at youth clinics, and with young people. The combination of conditions and outcomes will form the hypothesis to be further tested later on in the qualitative comparative analysis of the 20 cases. Once information on outcomes and conditions is gathered from each of the 20 clinics, it will be analysed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The added value of this study in relation to the findings is twofold: on the one hand it will allow a thorough assessment of the youth-friendliness of northern Swedish youth clinics. On the other hand, it will extract lessons from one of the most consolidated examples of differentiated services for young people. Methodologically, this study can contribute to expanding the use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis in health systems research. |
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 States | 1 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,486,175
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,711
of 7,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,501
of 365,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#115
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 365,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.