Transplant Infectious Diseases (TID) is a rapidly growing subspecialty, which has contributed significantly to improving patient outcomes after transplantation. Obtaining institutional support to implement programs that promote excellence in patient care remains a challenge for many non-surgical transplant-related specialties.
We surveyed the membership of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice to assess characteristics of individual transplant programs and delineate current patterns of institutional support of TID, with a goal of facilitating the exchange of innovative funding ideas between transplant programs.
Of 53 questionnaires returned, 36 programs reported the existence of a dedicated TID service for adults. Of these, the ratio of dedicated TID providers to the number of solid organ transplant patients transplanted annually ranged from 15:1 to 259:1. A total of 21% of responding programs indicated that they received no support from their institution. Respondents from larger programs were more likely to receive some type of programmatic support.
Given that the presence of expert TID input into patient care can improve outcomes through direct patient management and transplant team education, we suggest that continued support of the unbillable time contributed by TID practitioners is a critical part of ensuring excellent outcomes after transplantation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,917,373
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Transplant Infectious Disease
#970
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,227
of 319,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplant Infectious Disease
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 319,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
