| Title |
Classification of patients based on their evaluation of hospital outcomes: cluster analysis following a national survey in Norway
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-73 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oyvind Bjertnaes, Kjersti Eeg Skudal, Hilde Hestad Iversen |
| Abstract |
A general trend towards positive patient-reported evaluations of hospitals could be taken as a sign that most patients form a homogeneous, reasonably pleased group, and consequently that there is little need for quality improvement. The objective of this study was to explore this assumption by identifying and statistically validating clusters of patients based on their evaluation of outcomes related to overall satisfaction, malpractice and benefit of treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,331,227
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,438
of 7,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,786
of 192,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#86
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 192,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.