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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas1-1711 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Satish Nambisan, Priya Nambisan |
| Abstract |
Technological innovations typically benefit those who have good access to and an understanding of the underlying technologies. As such, technology-centered health care innovations are likely to preferentially benefit users of privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Which policies and strategies should health care organizations adopt to promote equitable distribution of the benefits from technological innovations? In this essay, we draw on two important concepts-co-creation (the joint creation of value by multiple parties such as a company and its customers) and digitalization (the application of new digital technologies and the ensuing changes in sociotechnical structures and relationships)-and propose a set of policies and strategies that health care organizations could adopt to ensure that benefits from technological innovations are more equitably distributed among all target populations, including resource-poor communities and individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 24% |
| South Africa | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 3% |
| Kenya | 1 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 52% |
| Scientists | 9 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 41% |