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 |
How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas1-1711 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Satish Nambisan, Priya Nambisan |
| Abstract |
Technological innovations typically benefit those who have good access to and an understanding of the underlying technologies. As such, technology-centered health care innovations are likely to preferentially benefit users of privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Which policies and strategies should health care organizations adopt to promote equitable distribution of the benefits from technological innovations? In this essay, we draw on two important concepts-co-creation (the joint creation of value by multiple parties such as a company and its customers) and digitalization (the application of new digital technologies and the ensuing changes in sociotechnical structures and relationships)-and propose a set of policies and strategies that health care organizations could adopt to ensure that benefits from technological innovations are more equitably distributed among all target populations, including resource-poor communities and individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 25% |
| South Africa | 2 | 7% |
| Kenya | 1 | 4% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 57% |
| Scientists | 9 | 32% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,012,073
of 26,178,577 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#601
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,455
of 344,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,178,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 344,415 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 34 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 50% of its contemporaries.