| Title |
Does Including Informal Care in Economic Evaluations Matter? A Systematic Review of Inclusion and Impact of Informal Care in Cost-Effectiveness Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-014-0218-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marieke Krol, Jocé Papenburg, Job van Exel |
| Abstract |
Informal care makes an important contribution to societal welfare. However, it may involve substantial time costs and can have a considerable negative effect on the health and well-being of informal caregivers. These costs and effects of informal caregiving are often excluded in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. The impact of this exclusion on the outcomes of these evaluations is largely unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 7 | 26% |
| Canada | 4 | 15% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 154 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 29 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 13% |
| Psychology | 16 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 12 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 12% |
| Unknown | 38 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 25 July 2020.
All research outputs
#999,659
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#34
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,036
of 255,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 255,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.