↓ Skip to main content

An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
236 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
461 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerd Flodgren, Martin P Eccles, Sasha Shepperd, Anthony Scott, Elena Parmelli, Fiona R Beyer

Abstract

There is considerable interest in the effectiveness of financial incentives in the delivery of health care. Incentives may be used in an attempt to increase the use of evidence-based treatments among healthcare professionals or to stimulate health professionals to change their clinical behaviour with respect to preventive, diagnostic and treatment decisions, or both. Financial incentives are an extrinsic source of motivation and exist when an individual can expect a monetary transfer which is made conditional on acting in a particular way. Since there are numerous reviews performed within the healthcare area describing the effects of various types of financial incentives, it is important to summarise the effectiveness of these in an overview to discern which are most effective in changing health professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 461 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 10 2%
Canada 7 2%
United States 4 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 430 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 109 24%
Researcher 87 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 14%
Unspecified 34 7%
Other 32 7%
Other 136 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 177 38%
Social Sciences 69 15%
Unspecified 54 12%
Psychology 34 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 33 7%
Other 94 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#201,265
of 13,775,877 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#466
of 10,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#820
of 81,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,775,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 81,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.