↓ Skip to main content

Healthcare Databases in Thailand and Japan: Potential Sources for Health Technology Assessment Research

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Healthcare Databases in Thailand and Japan: Potential Sources for Health Technology Assessment Research
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0141993
Pubmed ID
Authors

Surasak Saokaew, Takashi Sugimoto, Isao Kamae, Chayanin Pratoomsoot, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) has been continuously used for value-based healthcare decisions over the last decade. Healthcare databases represent an important source of information for HTA, which has seen a surge in use in Western countries. Although HTA agencies have been established in Asia-Pacific region, application and understanding of healthcare databases for HTA is rather limited. Thus, we reviewed existing databases to assess their potential for HTA in Thailand where HTA has been used officially and Japan where HTA is going to be officially introduced. Existing healthcare databases in Thailand and Japan were compiled and reviewed. Databases' characteristics e.g. name of database, host, scope/objective, time/sample size, design, data collection method, population/sample, and variables were described. Databases were assessed for its potential HTA use in terms of safety/efficacy/effectiveness, social/ethical, organization/professional, economic, and epidemiological domains. Request route for each database was also provided. Forty databases- 20 from Thailand and 20 from Japan-were included. These comprised of national censuses, surveys, registries, administrative data, and claimed databases. All databases were potentially used for epidemiological studies. In addition, data on mortality, morbidity, disability, adverse events, quality of life, service/technology utilization, length of stay, and economics were also found in some databases. However, access to patient-level data was limited since information about the databases was not available on public sources. Our findings have shown that existing databases provided valuable information for HTA research with limitation on accessibility. Mutual dialogue on healthcare database development and usage for HTA among Asia-Pacific region is needed.

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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,856,609
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#82,355
of 197,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,699
of 283,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,700
of 5,155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 283,403 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,155 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.