Principles for research on ethnicity and health: The Leeds Consensus Statement
European Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1101-1262, Vol: 23, Issue: 3, Page: 504-510
2013
- 51Citations
- 129Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations51
- Citation Indexes45
- 45
- CrossRef22
- Policy Citations6
- 6
- Captures129
- Readers129
- 129
Article Description
Background: There is substantial evidence that health and health-care experiences vary along ethnic lines and the need to understand and tackle ethnic health inequalities has repeatedly been highlighted. Research into ethnicity and health raises ethical, theoretical and methodological issues and, as the volume of research in this area grows, so too do concerns regarding its scientific rigour and reporting, and its contribution to reducing inequalities. Guidance may be helpful in encouraging researchers to adopt standard practices in the design, conduct and reporting of research. However, past efforts at introducing such guidance have had limited impact on research practice, and the diversity of disciplinary perspectives on the key challenges and solutions may undermine attempts to derive and promote guiding principles. Methods: A consensus building Delphi exercise - the first of its kind in this area of research practice - was undertaken with leading academics, practitioners and policymakers from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds to assess whether consensus on key principles could be achieved. Results: Ten key principles for conducting research on ethnicity and health emerged, covering: the aims of research in this field; how such research should be framed and focused; key design-related considerations; and the direction of future research. Despite some areas of dispute, participants were united by a common concern that the generation and application of research evidence should contribute to better health-care experiences and health outcomes for minority ethnic people. Conclusion: The principles provide a strong foundation to guide future ethnicity-related research and build a broader international consensus. © 2012 The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84878311713&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks028; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22552261; https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cks028; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks028; https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/23/3/504/538437; https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-pdf/23/3/504/1434733/cks028.pdf; http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cks028; http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/504; http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cks028
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know