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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Suggestions to ameliorate the inequity in urban/rural allocation of healthcare resources in China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-9276-13-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yiyi Chen, Zhou Yin, Qiong Xie |
| Abstract |
The imbalance in the allocation in healthcare resources between urban and rural areas has become a main focus of the recent medical reforms adopted in China. However, systematic analysis has identified wide differences in the allocation of healthcare resources between urban and rural areas, including healthcare expenditures and the number of healthcare facilities, available beds, and personnel. Therefore, the aim of this report was to identify ethical considerations in current governmental policies to rectify existing problems in the distribution of healthcare resources. Our findings indicate that the inequality in the distribution of healthcare resources does not adhere to ethical standards and the policies are flawed because they give rise to differences in the availability of medical care to urban and rural communities. To optimize the allocation of medical healthcare resources, countermeasures are proposed to formulate policies to urge the flow of public healthcare resources to rural areas, strengthen the responsibilities of both governmental and public financial investments, increase the construction of public healthcare facilities in rural areas, promote the quality of healthcare resources, adjust resource allocations to rural public healthcare facilities, and improve resource utilization efficiency by establishing two-way referral mechanisms. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
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 20 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,443,958
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,148
of 1,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,262
of 227,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 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 1,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 227,852 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.