↓ Skip to main content

The Public Health Innovation Model: Merging Private Sector Processes with Public Health Strengths

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
The Public Health Innovation Model: Merging Private Sector Processes with Public Health Strengths
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cameron Lister, Hannah Payne, Carl L. Hanson, Michael D. Barnes, Siena F. Davis, Todd Manwaring

Abstract

Public health enjoyed a number of successes over the twentieth century. However, public health agencies have arguably been ill equipped to sustain these successes and address the complex threats we face today, including morbidity and mortality associated with persistent chronic diseases and emerging infectious diseases, in the context of flat funding and new and changing health care legislation. Transformational leaders, who are not afraid of taking risks to develop innovative approaches to combat present-day threats, are needed within public health agencies. We propose the Public Health Innovation Model (PHIM) as a tool for public health leaders who wish to integrate innovation into public health practice. This model merges traditional public health program planning models with innovation principles adapted from the private sector, including design thinking, seeking funding from private sector entities, and more strongly emphasizing program outcomes. We also discuss principles that leaders should consider adopting when transitioning to the PHIM, including cross-collaboration, community buy-in, human-centered assessment, autonomy and creativity, rapid experimentation and prototyping, and accountability to outcomes.

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 3 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Professor 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 37 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,874,077
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,338
of 10,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,504
of 317,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#57
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 317,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.