| Title |
Advancing current approaches to disease management evaluation: capitalizing on heterogeneity to understand what works and for whom
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-40 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arianne MJ Elissen, John L Adams, Marieke Spreeuwenberg, Inge GP Duimel-Peeters, Cor Spreeuwenberg, Ariel Linden, Hubertus JM Vrijhoef |
| Abstract |
Evaluating large-scale disease management interventions implemented in actual health care settings is a complex undertaking for which universally accepted methods do not exist. Fundamental issues, such as a lack of control patients and limited generalizability, hamper the use of the 'gold-standard' randomized controlled trial, while methodological shortcomings restrict the value of observational designs. Advancing methods for disease management evaluation in practice is pivotal to learn more about the impact of population-wide approaches. Methods must account for the presence of heterogeneity in effects, which necessitates a more granular assessment of outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sierra Leone | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Psychology | 6 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 March 2013.
All research outputs
#12,580,762
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,140
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,516
of 196,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 196,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 51% of its contemporaries.