↓ Skip to main content

Prevention praised, cure preferred: results of between-subjects experimental studies comparing (monetary) appreciation for preventive and curative interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Prevention praised, cure preferred: results of between-subjects experimental studies comparing (monetary) appreciation for preventive and curative interventions
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-136
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ree M Meertens, Vivian MJ Van de Gaar, Maitta Spronken, Nanne K de Vries

Abstract

'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' is a common saying, and indeed, most health economic studies conclude that people are more willing to pay for preventive measures than for treatment activities. This may be because most health economic studies ask respondents to compare preventive measures with treatment, and thus prompt respondents to consider other uses of resources. However, psychological theorizing suggests that, when methods do not challenge subjects to consider other uses of resources, curative treatment is favored over prevention. Could it be that while prevention is praised, cure is preferred?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Psychology 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,620,174
of 24,338,161 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#76
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,631
of 316,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,338,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 316,206 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 91% of its contemporaries.