↓ Skip to main content

What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine L Saunders, Gary A Abel, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Saunders CL, Abel GA, Lyratzopoulos G

Abstract

To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 31%
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Psychology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Other 11 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,062,527
of 13,456,190 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,371
of 11,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,436
of 254,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#43
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,456,190 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 254,588 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.