↓ Skip to main content

The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009853.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Brocklehurst, Juliet Price, Anne-Marie Glenny, Martin Tickle, Stephen Birch, Elizabeth Mertz, Jostein Grytten

Abstract

Methods of remuneration have been linked with the professional behaviour of primary care physicians. In dentistry, this can be exacerbated as clinicians operate their practices as businesses and take the full financial risk of the provision of services. The main methods for remunerating primary care dentists include fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. The aim of this review was to determine the impact that these remuneration mechanisms have upon primary care dentists' behaviour.

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 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 205 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 21%
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Other 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 37 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 44%
Social Sciences 17 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 5%
Psychology 10 5%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 48 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,666,392
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,918
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,711
of 177,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 177,134 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 53% of its contemporaries.