↓ Skip to main content

Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
7 policy sources
twitter
81 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 2004
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.1040722
Pubmed ID
Authors

P J Devereaux, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Christina Lacchetti, Ted Haines, Karen E A Burns, Deborah J Cook, Nikila Ravindran, S D Walter, Heather McDonald, Samuel B Stone, Rakesh Patel, Mohit Bhandari, Holger J Schünemann, Peter T-L Choi, Ahmed M Bayoumi, John N Lavis, Terrence Sullivan, Greg Stoddart, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract

It has been shown that patients cared for at private for-profit hospitals have higher risk-adjusted mortality rates than those cared for at private not-for-profit hospitals. Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Since some policy-makers might still consider for-profit health care if expenditure savings were sufficiently large, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
India 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 31%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 12%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 27 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 146. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#289,545
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#518
of 9,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266
of 62,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 62,913 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.