| Title |
The Use of Three Strategies to Improve Quality of Care at a National Level
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-011-2083-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeannette P. P. So, James G. Wright |
| Abstract |
Improving the quality of care is essential and a priority for patients, surgeons, and healthcare providers. Strategies to improve quality have been proposed at the national level either through accreditation standards or through national payment schemes; however, their effectiveness in improving quality is controversial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 19% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,220
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,945
of 173,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#28
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 173,053 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 66% of its contemporaries.