↓ Skip to main content

Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
47 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
757 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
947 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Dixon-Woods, Debbie Cavers, Shona Agarwal, Ellen Annandale, Antony Arthur, Janet Harvey, Ron Hsu, Savita Katbamna, Richard Olsen, Lucy Smith, Richard Riley, Alex J Sutton

Abstract

Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 947 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 29 3%
Canada 11 1%
South Africa 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Uganda 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 881 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 231 24%
Researcher 175 18%
Student > Master 173 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 78 8%
Professor 38 4%
Other 183 19%
Unknown 69 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 262 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 214 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 112 12%
Psychology 76 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 4%
Other 136 14%
Unknown 109 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#502,351
of 14,995,047 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#57
of 1,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,331
of 156,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,995,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 156,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them