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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Allied health growth: what we do not measure we cannot manage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12960-015-0027-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniela Solomon, Nicholas Graves, Judith Catherwood |
| Abstract |
Data describing the Australian allied health workforce is inadequate and so insufficient for workforce planning. National health policy reform requires that health-care models take into account future workforce requirements, the distribution and work contexts of existing practitioners, training needs, workforce roles and scope of practice. Good information on this workforce is essential for managing services as demands increase, accountability of practitioners, measurement of outcomes and benchmarking against other jurisdictions. A comprehensive data set is essential to underpin policy and planning to meet future health workforce needs. Some data on allied health professions is managed by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency; however, there is limited information regarding several core allied health professions. A global registration and accreditation scheme recognizing all allied health professions might provide safeguards and credibility for professionals and their clients. Arguments are presented about inconsistencies and voids in the available information about allied health services. Remedying these information deficits is essential to underpin policy and planning for future health workforce needs. We make the case for a comprehensive national data set based on a broad and inclusive sampling process across the allied health population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#772
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,682
of 278,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 278,953 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.