↓ Skip to main content

Evidence Review—Social Determinants of Health for Veterans

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Evidence Review—Social Determinants of Health for Veterans
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4566-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Duan-Porter, Brian C. Martinson, Nancy Greer, Brent C. Taylor, Kristen Ullman, Lauren McKenzie, Christina Rosebush, Roderick MacDonald, Samuel Falde, Timothy J. Wilt

Abstract

Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles-99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 32%
Student > Master 4 21%
Unspecified 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Unspecified 4 21%
Social Sciences 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,967,468
of 13,285,014 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,923
of 4,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,945
of 267,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#79
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,285,014 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.