↓ Skip to main content

Implementing disability evaluation and welfare services based on the framework of the international classification of functioning, disability and health: experiences in Taiwan

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Implementing disability evaluation and welfare services based on the framework of the international classification of functioning, disability and health: experiences in Taiwan
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen-Ta Chiu, Chia-Feng Yen, Sue-Wen Teng, Hua-Fang Liao, Kwang-Hwa Chang, Wen-Chou Chi, Yen-Ho Wang, Tsan-Hon Liou

Abstract

Before 2007, the disability evaluation was based on the medical model in Taiwan. According to the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, from 2012 the assessment of a person's eligibility for disability benefits has to be determined based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework nationwide. The purposes of this study were to: 1) design the evaluation tools for disability eligibility system based on the ICF/ICF-Children and Youth; 2) compare the differences of grades of disability between the old and new evaluation systems; 3) analyse the outcome of the new disability evaluation system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 8 12%
Unspecified 7 11%
Other 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 30%
Social Sciences 13 20%
Unspecified 11 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Psychology 5 8%
Other 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,302,434
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,311
of 2,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,991
of 101,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#80
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,076 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 101,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.