↓ Skip to main content

Is there enough research output of EU projects available to assess and improve health system performance? An attempt to understand and categorise the output of EU projects conducted between 2002 and…

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Is there enough research output of EU projects available to assess and improve health system performance? An attempt to understand and categorise the output of EU projects conducted between 2002 and 2012
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0165-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Britta Zander, Reinhard Busse

Abstract

Adequate performance assessment benefits from the use of disaggregated data to allow a proper evaluation of health systems. Since routinely collected data are usually not disaggregated enough to allow stratified analyses of healthcare needs, utilisation, cost and quality across different sectors, international research projects could fill this gap by exploring means to data collection or even providing individual-level data. The aim of this paper is therefore to (1) study the availability and accessibility of relevant European-funded health projects, and (2) to analyse their contents and methodologies. The European Commission Public Health Projects Database and CORDIS were searched for eligible projects, which were then analysed by information openly available online. Overall, only a few of the 39 identified projects produced data useful for proper performance assessment, due to, for example, lacking available or accessible data, or poor linkage of health status to costs and patient experiences. Other problems were insufficient databases to identify projects and poor communication of project contents and results. A new approach is necessary to improve accessibility to and coverage of data on outcomes, quality and costs of health systems enabling decision-makers and health professionals to properly assess performance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 4 19%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,402,895
of 9,105,319 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#446
of 538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,000
of 255,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#26
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,105,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. 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 255,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.