↓ Skip to main content

Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2007
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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2007
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-6-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edith Patouillard, Catherine A Goodman, Kara G Hanson, Anne J Mills

Abstract

There has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low- and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
India 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Kenya 3 1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 271 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 83 28%
Researcher 39 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 18 6%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 40 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 30%
Social Sciences 62 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 23 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 19 6%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 52 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,301,844
of 24,216,270 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#598
of 2,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,220
of 80,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,216,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 80,240 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them