| Title |
Provider Collaboration: Cohesion, Constellations, and Shared Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-2964-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth D. Mandl, Karen L. Olson, Daniel Mines, Chunfu Liu, Fang Tian |
| Abstract |
There is a natural assumption that quality and efficiency are optimized when providers consistently work together and share patients. Diversity in composition and recurrence of groups that provide face-to-face care to the same patients has not previously been studied. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 3 | 75% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
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 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,855,711
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,099
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,926
of 232,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#50
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 232,161 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 50% of its contemporaries.