↓ Skip to main content

A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services’ accessibility in economic migrants

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
citeulike
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.
Title
A metasynthesis of qualitative studies regarding opinions and perceptions about barriers and determinants of health services’ accessibility in economic migrants
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrés A Agudelo-Suárez, Diana Gil-González, Carmen Vives-Cases, John G Love, Peter Wimpenny, Elena Ronda-Pérez

Abstract

Access to health services is an important health determinant. New research in health equity is required, especially amongst economic migrants from developing countries. Studies conducted on the use of health services by migrant populations highlight existing gaps in understanding which factors affect access to these services from a qualitative perspective. We aim to describe the views of the migrants regarding barriers and determinants of access to health services in the international literature (1997-2011).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 262 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 17%
Researcher 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 15 5%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 60 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 20%
Social Sciences 44 16%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 73 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,359,218
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,505
of 7,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,539
of 266,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#21
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 266,388 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.