| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ans H Tiessen, Karin M Vermeulen, Jan Broer, Andries J Smit, Klaas van der Meer |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is largely preventable and prevention expenditures are relatively low. The randomised controlled SPRING-trial (SPRING-RCT) shows that cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses in general practice with and without self-monitoring both decreases cardiovascular risk, with no additional effect of self-monitoring. For considering future approaches of cardiovascular risk reduction, cost effectiveness analyses of regular care and additional self-monitoring are performed from a societal perspective on data from the SPRING-RCT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 26% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
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 05 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,304,843
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,611
of 14,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,532
of 192,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#106
of 271 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 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 192,548 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 271 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 60% of its contemporaries.