↓ Skip to main content

Correlation between patients’ reasons for encounters/health problems and population density in Japan: a systematic review of observational studies coded by the International Classification of Health…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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
Correlation between patients’ reasons for encounters/health problems and population density in Japan: a systematic review of observational studies coded by the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPC) and the International Classification of Primary care (ICPC)
Published in
BMC Family Practice, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-017-0658-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Makoto Kaneko, Ryuichi Ohta, Naoki Nago, Motoharu Fukushi, Masato Matsushima

Abstract

The Japanese health care system has yet to establish structured training for primary care physicians; therefore, physicians who received an internal medicine based training program continue to play a principal role in the primary care setting. To promote the development of a more efficient primary health care system, the assessment of its current status in regard to the spectrum of patients' reasons for encounters (RFEs) and health problems is an important step. Recognizing the proportions of patients' RFEs and health problems, which are not generally covered by an internist, can provide valuable information to promote the development of a primary care physician-centered system. We conducted a systematic review in which we searched six databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ichushi-Web, JDreamIII and CiNii) for observational studies in Japan coded by International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPC) and International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) up to March 2015. We employed population density as index of accessibility. We calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to examine the correlation between the proportion of "non-internal medicine-related" RFEs and health problems in each study area in consideration of the population density. We found 17 studies with diverse designs and settings. Among these studies, "non-internal medicine-related" RFEs, which was not thought to be covered by internists, ranged from about 4% to 40%. In addition, "non-internal medicine-related" health problems ranged from about 10% to 40%. However, no significant correlation was found between population density and the proportion of "non-internal medicine-related" RFEs and health problems. This is the first systematic review on RFEs and health problems coded by ICHPPC and ICPC undertaken to reveal the diversity of health problems in Japanese primary care. These results suggest that primary care physicians in some rural areas of Japan need to be able to deal with "non-internal-medicine-related" RFEs and health problems, and that curriculum including practical non-internal medicine-related training is likely to be important.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#9,031,929
of 11,761,635 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#937
of 1,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,330
of 264,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,761,635 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 264,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.