↓ Skip to main content

How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
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.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Professor 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 27 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 26 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,050,264
of 26,729,497 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#611
of 2,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,241
of 345,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#16
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,729,497 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 345,629 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.