↓ Skip to main content

A scoping review of definitions and frameworks of intersectoral action

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 1,880)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

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
A scoping review of definitions and frameworks of intersectoral action
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-812320152010.01222014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandra Dubois, Louise St-Pierre, Mirella Veras

Abstract

Intersectoral action is rooted in all health promotion activities because the determinants of health lie outside of the health sector. Despite the increasing use of these terms (intersectoral action, intersectoral action for health, intersectoral collaboration), often interchangeably, we noted a lack of consensus on their definitions and conceptualizations. The objective of this paper is to report the results of a scoping review of the use of definitions for a set of related terms as well as for conceptual frameworks, including the discussion of the evolution of those definitions and the sectors that use them. Finally, we propose a single definition for each term. We conducted a systematic search for documents published between January, 1960 and March, 2011 in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese. We retrieved 11 to 15 definitions per main term. Using a content analysis approach, an integrative conceptual definition was proposed for four main terms. Furthermore, in reviewing frameworks for potential use, we noted the lack of a comprehensive framework for intersectoral processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 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 13 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Social Sciences 9 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 16 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,843,652
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#39
of 1,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,516
of 275,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,880 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 275,325 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.