| Title |
The equity dimension in evaluations of the quality and outcomes framework: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-11-209 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pauline Boeckxstaens, Delphine De Smedt, Jan De Maeseneer, Lieven Annemans, Sara Willems |
| Abstract |
Pay-for-performance systems raise concerns regarding inequity in health care because providers might select patients for whom targets can easily be reached. This paper aims to describe the evolution of pre-existing (in)equity in health care in the period after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK and to describe (in)equities in exception reporting. In this evaluation, a theory-based framework conceptualising equity in terms of equal access, equal treatment and equal treatment outcomes for people in equal need is used to guide the work. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 15% |
| Researcher | 26 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 21% |
| Unknown | 48 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 24% |
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 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,199,256
of 24,917,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,502
of 8,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,003
of 129,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#20
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,917,903 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 8,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 129,177 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 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.