↓ Skip to main content

Mobile clinics for women's and children's health

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
9 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


12 Dimensions

Readers on

516 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Mobile clinics for women's and children's health
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009677.pub2
Pubmed ID

Hany Abdel-Aleem, Omaima MH El-Gibaly, Amira FE-S EL-Gazzar, Ghada ST Al-Attar


The accessibility of health services is an important factor that affects the health outcomes of populations. A mobile clinic provides a wide range of services but in most countries the main focus is on health services for women and children. It is anticipated that improvement of the accessibility of health services via mobile clinics will improve women's and children's health. To evaluate the impact of mobile clinic services on women's and children's health. For related systematic reviews, we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CRD; Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), CRD; NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), CRD (searched 20 February 2014).For primary studies, we searched ISI Web of Science, for studies that have cited the included studies in this review (searched 18 January 2016); WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 23 May 2016); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 7 April 2015); MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 7 April 2015); Embase, OvidSP (searched 7 April 2015); CINAHL, EbscoHost (searched 7 April 2015); Global Health, OvidSP (searched 8 April 2015); POPLINE, K4Health (searched 8 April 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (searched 8 April 2015); Global Health Library, WHO (searched 8 April 2015); PAHO, VHL (searched 8 April 2015); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 8 April 2015); LILACS, VHL (searched 9 April 2015). We included individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We included controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies provided they had at least two intervention sites and two control sites. Also, we included interrupted time series (ITS) studies if there was a clearly defined point in time when the intervention occurred and at least three data points before and three after the intervention. We defined the intervention of a mobile clinic as a clinic vehicle with a healthcare provider (with or without a nurse) and a driver that visited areas on a regular basis. The participants were women (18 years or older) and children (under the age of 18 years) in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy, extracted data from the included studies using a specially-designed data extraction form based on the Cochrane EPOC Group data collection checklist, and assessed full-text articles for eligibility. All authors performed analyses, 'Risk of bias' assessments, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two cluster-RCTs met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both studies were conducted in the USA.One study tested whether offering onsite mobile mammography combined with health education was more effective at increasing breast cancer screening rates than offering health education only, including reminders to attend a static clinic for mammography. Women in the group offered mobile mammography and health education may be more likely to undergo mammography within three months of the intervention than those in the comparison group (55% versus 40%; odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.74; low certainty evidence).A cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography at mobile versus static units found that the total cost per patient screened may be higher for mobile units than for static units. The incremental costs per patient screened for a mobile over a stationary unit were USD 61 and USD 45 for a mobile full digital unit and a mobile film unit respectively.The second study compared asthma outcomes for children aged two to six years who received asthma care from a mobile asthma clinic and children who received standard asthma care from the usual (static) primary provider. Children who receive asthma care from a mobile asthma clinic may experience little or no difference in symptom-free days, urgent care use and caregiver-reported medication use compared to children who receive care from their usual primary care provider. All of the evidence was of low certainty. The paucity of evidence and the restricted range of contexts from which evidence is available make it difficult to draw conclusions on the impacts of mobile clinics on women's and children's health compared to static clinics. Further rigorous studies are needed in low-, middle-, and high-income countries to evaluate the impacts of mobile clinics on women's and children's health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 516 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 516 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 15%
Researcher 69 13%
Student > Bachelor 47 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 8%
Other 26 5%
Other 96 19%
Unknown 158 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 94 18%
Social Sciences 27 5%
Psychology 24 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 71 14%
Unknown 177 34%

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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
of 19,862,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 277,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,862,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 277,604 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.