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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Complexity of Health Service Integration: A Review of Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00223 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marion Heyeres, Janya McCalman, Komla Tsey, Irina Kinchin |
| Abstract |
The aim of health service integration is to provide a sustainable and integrated health system that better meets the needs of the end user. Yet, definitions of health service integration, methods for integrating health services, and expected outcomes are varied. This review was commissioned by Queensland Health, the government department responsible for health service delivery in Queensland, Australia, to inform efforts to integrate their mental health services. This review reports on the characteristics, reported outcomes, and design quality of studies included in systematic reviews of health service integration research. The review was developed by systematically searching nine electronic databases to find peer-reviewed Australian and international systematic reviews with a focus on health service integration. Reviews were included if they were in the English language and published between 2000 and 2015. A standardized assessment tool was used to analyze the study design quality of included reviews. Data relating to the integration types, methods, and reported outcomes of integration were synthesized. Seventeen publications met the inclusion criteria. Eleven (65%) reviews were published during the past 5 years, which may indicate a trend for increased awareness of the need for service integration. The majority of reviews were published by researchers in the UK (8/47%), USA (3/18%), and Australia (3/18%). Included reviews focused on a variety of integration types, including integrated care pathways, governance models, integration of interventions, collaborative/integrated care models, and integration of different types of health care. Most (53%) of the reviews reported on the cost-effectiveness of service integration, e.g., positive results, no effect, or inconclusive. Only one of the reviews reported on the importance of consumer involvement. The overall design of 70% of the reviews was high, 18% medium, and 12% low. There is no "one size fits all" approach to health service integration. Instead, this literature review highlighted the complexity of service integration, which in most primary studies involved a range of strategies. Rigorous assessments of cost-effectiveness and reporting on consumer involvement are required in future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,131,140
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,832
of 10,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,847
of 315,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#33
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 315,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 58% of its contemporaries.