↓ Skip to main content

A Theory of Waiting Time Reporting and Quality Signaling

Overview of attention for article published in Health economics (Online), August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Theory of Waiting Time Reporting and Quality Signaling
Published in
Health economics (Online), August 2015
DOI 10.1002/hec.3222
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yijuan Chen, Juergen Meinecke, Peter Sivey

Abstract

We develop a theoretical model to study a policy that publicly reports hospital waiting times. We characterize two effects of such a policy: the 'competition effect' that drives hospitals to compete for patients by increasing service rates and reducing waiting times and the 'signaling effect' that allows patients to distinguish a high-quality hospital from a low-quality one. While for a low-quality hospital both effects help reduce waiting time, for a high-quality hospital, they act in opposite directions. We show that the competition effect will outweigh the signaling effect for the high-quality hospital, and consequently, both hospitals' waiting times will be reduced by the introduction of the policy. This result holds in a policy environment where maximum waiting time targets are not binding. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 4 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Health economics (Online)
#1,604
of 2,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,248
of 275,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health economics (Online)
#18
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 275,212 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.