↓ Skip to main content

Reinversión en sanidad: fundamentos, aclaraciones, experiencias y perspectivas

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2013
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 (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

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.
Title
Reinversión en sanidad: fundamentos, aclaraciones, experiencias y perspectivas
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.01.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Campillo-Artero, Enrique Bernal-Delgado

Abstract

During the economic crisis, the pressure to reduce health services expenditure as an isolated measure is greater than measures intended to increase the efficiency of these services. Information, methods and experiences to improve health outcomes with limited resources are available and a number of countries have been applying measures to achieve this goal. One of these measures is disinvestment. Given that this tactic is necessary but also intricate, allergenic and confusing, this article tries to clarify its meaning, place it in its correct context, and describe the methods and criteria used to identify and prioritize candidate medical technologies for disinvestment. The experiences of Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy in this endeavor are reviewed, as well as the obstacles faced by these countries when disinvesting and their mid-term perspectives. Ignorance does not excuse its application, regardless of whether there is a crisis or not. Efforts to improve social efficiency are a permanent obligation of the national health system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Colombia 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,217,718
of 11,218,652 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#55
of 340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,981
of 128,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,218,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 340 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 128,408 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.