↓ Skip to main content

Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Value in Health (Elsevier Science), September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey
Published in
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 7%
Engineering 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,618,251
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#712
of 5,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,788
of 355,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#15
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 355,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 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 93% of its contemporaries.