↓ Skip to main content

Exploring what lies behind public preferences for avoiding health losses caused by lapses in healthcare safety and patient lifestyle choices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Exploring what lies behind public preferences for avoiding health losses caused by lapses in healthcare safety and patient lifestyle choices
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeshika Singh, Louise Longworth, Amanda Baine, Joanne Lord, Shepley Orr, Martin Buxton

Abstract

Although many studies have identified public preferences for prioritising health care interventions based on characteristics of recipient or care, very few of them have examined the reasons for the stated preferences. We conducted an on-line person trade-off (PTO) study (N=1030) to investigate whether the public attach a premium to the avoidance of ill health associated with alternative types of responsibilities: lapses in healthcare safety, those caused by individual action or lifestyle choice; or genetic conditions. We found that the public gave higher priority to prevention of harm in a hospital setting such as preventing hospital associated infections than genetic disorder but drug administration errors were valued similar to genetic disorders. Prevention of staff injuries, lifestyle diseases and sports injuries, were given lower priority. In this paper we aim to understand the reasoning behind the responses by analysing comments provided by respondents to the PTO questions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 September 2013.
All research outputs
#3,423,917
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,682
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,980
of 151,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 151,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 55% of its contemporaries.