| Title |
The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-367 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate L Mandeville, Mylene Lagarde, Kara Hanson |
| Abstract |
Discrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers. Discrete choice experiments in health, however, have been criticised for lagging behind best practice and there are specific methodological considerations for those focused on job choices. We performed a systematic review of the application of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 3 | 30% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| South Africa | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 234 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Researcher | 26 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 49 | 21% |
| Unknown | 58 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 18% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 27 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 33 | 14% |
| Unknown | 67 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,760,662
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,762
of 8,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,193
of 244,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#23
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 244,438 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.