↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative arrangements for Australian nurse practitioners: A policy analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, August 2014
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Collaborative arrangements for Australian nurse practitioners: A policy analysis
Published in
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, August 2014
DOI 10.1002/2327-6924.12164
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In Australia in 2010, nurse practitioners (NPs) were granted legislated access to the Medical Benefits Scheme (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) as providers. These schemes are the federal schemes for third-party reimbursement for health care and medications. As a condition of access to the schemes, it was determined that collaborative arrangements needed to be in place as part of eligibility criteria for NPs. This article is the first published policy analysis of this determination.

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 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 July 2022.
All research outputs
#5,079,645
of 27,443,739 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners
#166
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,467
of 244,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,443,739 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 244,733 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.