↓ Skip to main content

Metrics That Matter

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Metrics That Matter
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3559-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia C. Prentice, Austin B. Frakt, Steven D. Pizer

Abstract

Increasingly, performance metrics are seen as key components for accurately measuring and improving health care value. Disappointment in the ability of chosen metrics to meet these goals is exemplified in a recent Institute of Medicine report that argues for a consensus-building process to determine a simplified set of reliable metrics. Overall health care goals should be defined and then metrics to measure these goals should be considered. If appropriate data for the identified goals are not available, they should be developed. We use examples from our work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) on validating waiting time and mental health metrics to highlight other key issues for metric selection and implementation. First, we focus on the need for specification and predictive validation of metrics. Second, we discuss strategies to maintain the fidelity of the data used in performance metrics over time. These strategies include using appropriate incentives and data sources, using composite metrics, and ongoing monitoring. Finally, we discuss the VA's leadership in developing performance metrics through a planned upgrade in its electronic medical record system to collect more comprehensive VHA and non-VHA data, increasing the ability to comprehensively measure outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 11 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,408
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,660
of 302,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#78
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 302,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.