You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Outcomes of specialist discharge coordination and intermediate care schemes for patients who are homeless: analysis protocol for a population-based historical cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019282 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruth M Blackburn, Andrew Hayward, Michelle Cornes, Martin McKee, Dan Lewer, Martin Whiteford, Dee Menezes, Serena Luchenski, Alistair Story, Spiros Denaxas, Michela Tinelli, Fatima B Wurie, Richard Byng, Michael C Clark, James Fuller, Mark Gabbay, Nigel Hewett, Alan Kilmister, Jill Manthorpe, Joanne Neale, Robert W Aldridge |
| Abstract |
People who are homeless often experience poor hospital discharge arrangements, reflecting ongoing care and housing needs. Specialist integrated homeless health and care provision (SIHHC) schemes have been developed and implemented to facilitate the safe and timely discharge of homeless patients from hospital. Our study aims to investigate the health outcomes of patients who were homeless and seen by a selection of SIHHC services. Our study will employ a historical population-based cohort in England. We will examine health outcomes among three groups of adults: (1) homeless patients seen by specialist discharge schemes during their hospital admission; (2) homeless patients not seen by a specialist scheme and (3) admitted patients who live in deprived neighbourhoods and were not recorded as being homeless. Primary outcomes will be: time from discharge to next hospital inpatient admission; time from discharge to next accident and emergency attendance and 28-day emergency readmission. Outcome data will be generated through linkage to hospital admissions data (Hospital Episode Statistics) and mortality data for November 2013 to November 2016. Multivariable regression will be used to model the relationship between the study comparison groups and each of the outcomes. Approval has been obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) Confidentiality Advisory Group (reference 16/CAG/0021) to undertake this work using unconsented identifiable data. Health Research Authority Research Ethics approval (REC 16/EE/0018) has been obtained in addition to local research and development approvals for data collection at NHS sites. We will feedback the results of our study to our advisory group of people who have lived experience of homelessness and seek their suggestions on ways to improve or take this work further for their benefit. We will disseminate our findings to SIHHC schemes through a series of regional workshops. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 9 | 47% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 47% |
| Scientists | 6 | 32% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,005,112
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#5,794
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,799
of 443,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#184
of 604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 443,583 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 604 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 69% of its contemporaries.