↓ Skip to main content

Screening for social determinants of health in clinical care: moving from the margins to the mainstream

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 278)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 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
Screening for social determinants of health in clinical care: moving from the margins to the mainstream
Published in
Public Health Reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40985-018-0094-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Andermann

Abstract

Screening for the social determinants of health in clinical practice is still widely debated. A scoping review was used to (1) explore the various screening tools that are available to identify social risk, (2) examine the impact that screening for social determinants has on health and social outcomes, and (3) identify factors that promote the uptake of screening in routine clinical care. Over the last two decades, a growing number of screening tools have been developed to help frontline health workers ask about the social determinants of health in clinical care. In addition to clinical practice guidelines that recommend screening for specific areas of social risk (e.g., violence in pregnancy), there is also a growing body of evidence exploring the use of screening or case finding for identifying multiple domains of social risk (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, violence, unemployment, and housing problems). There is increasing traction within the medical field for improving social history taking and integrating more formal screening for social determinants of health within clinical practice. There is also a growing number of high-quality evidence-based reviews that identify interventions that are effective in promoting health equity at the individual patient level, and at broader community and structural levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 351 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 13%
Student > Master 45 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Other 30 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 8%
Other 63 18%
Unknown 109 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 16%
Social Sciences 47 13%
Psychology 16 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 26 7%
Unknown 119 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,025,447
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#27
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,056
of 342,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 342,290 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.