| Title |
A Systematic and Critical Review of the Evolving Methods and Applications of Value of Information in Academia and Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-012-0008-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lotte Steuten, Gijs van de Wetering, Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Valesca Retèl |
| Abstract |
This article provides a systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information (VOI) in academia and practice and discusses where future research needs to be directed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 26% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,910,541
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#756
of 1,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,933
of 277,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#17
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 277,627 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.