↓ Skip to main content

Informing Health Policy Decision Makers

Overview of attention for article published in Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Article details
Title
Informing Health Policy Decision Makers
Published in
Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, August 2016
DOI 10.1177/1527154416661614
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda L. Lazure, Mary E. Cramer, Katherine A. Hoebelheinrich

Abstract

Medicare patients seeking care from nurse practitioners (NPs) increased 15-fold from 1998 to 2010, and a 2.5-fold patient increase was recorded in states that have eased the regulatory environment for NPs. It is increasingly important that state regulatory and licensing boards-charged with protecting the public through the assurance of a qualified health-care workforce-examine whether their state regulatory environment restricts or promotes public access to quality health care. This article presents a case study of a statutory scope of practice credentialing review process for NPs in Nebraska. It examines in depth what individuals involved in policy change processes found most useful for informed decision making. The methodology included observation of the process, review of submitted documents, and a survey to individuals involved in the decision-making process (n = 22/48). The study findings have application for those seeking scope of practice policy changes, with specific suggestions for how to better prepare themselves and present information in formats that are helpful to decision makers. Our results also shed new light on what specific evidence submitted during a scope of practice review process is most valued for promoting the understanding of decision makers to effect change.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Librarian 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 36%
Computer Science 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,553,480
of 27,653,781 outputs
Outputs from Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice
#63
of 244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,097
of 338,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice
#10
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,653,781 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 338,000 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 72% of its contemporaries.