| Title |
The challenge of obtaining information necessary for multi-criteria decision analysis implementation: the case of physiotherapy services in Canada
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7547-11-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francois Dionne, Craig Mitton, Tanya MacDonald, Carol Miller, Michael Brennan |
| Abstract |
As fiscal constraints dominate health policy discussions across Canada and globally, priority-setting exercises are becoming more common to guide the difficult choices that must be made. In this context, it becomes highly desirable to have accurate estimates of the value of specific health care interventions.Economic evaluation is a well-accepted method to estimate the value of health care interventions. However, economic evaluation has significant limitations, which have lead to an increase in the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). One key concern with MCDA is the availability of the information necessary for implementation. In the Fall 2011, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association embarked on a project aimed at providing a valuation of physiotherapy services that is both evidence-based and relevant to resource allocation decisions. The framework selected for this project was MCDA. We report on how we addressed the challenge of obtaining some of the information necessary for MCDA implementation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 44% |
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Kenya | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 19% |
| Engineering | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,378,246
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#188
of 532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,402
of 208,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 208,741 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.