↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Hardwick, Mark Pearson, Richard Byng, Rob Anderson

Abstract

Shared care (an enhanced information exchange over and above routine outpatient letters) is commonly used to improve care coordination and communication between a specialist and primary care services for people with long-term conditions. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care is mixed. Informed decision-making for targeting shared care requires a greater understanding of how it works, for whom it works, in what contexts and why. This protocol outlines how realist review methods can be used to synthesise evidence on shared care for long-term conditions.A further aim of the review is to explore economic evaluations of shared care. Economic evaluations are difficult to synthesise due to problems in accounting for contextual differences that impact on resource use and opportunity costs. Realist review methods have been suggested as a way to overcome some of these issues, so this review will also assess whether realist review methods are amenable to synthesising economic evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 4%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 92 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 36%
Social Sciences 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,072,999
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,154
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,269
of 287,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 287,465 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.