| Title |
Choosing Wisely: Prevalence and Correlates of Low-Value Health Care Services in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-3070-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carrie H. Colla, Nancy E. Morden, Thomas D. Sequist, William L. Schpero, Meredith B. Rosenthal |
| Abstract |
Specialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 8 | 53% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 47% |
| Scientists | 5 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 199 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 12% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 47 | 23% |
| Unknown | 39 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 48 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,266,584
of 25,635,728 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,009
of 8,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,281
of 276,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#19
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,635,728 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 8,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 276,907 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.