↓ Skip to main content

Health care public reporting utilization – user clusters, web trails, and usage barriers on Germany’s public reporting portal Weisse-Liste.de

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Health care public reporting utilization – user clusters, web trails, and usage barriers on Germany’s public reporting portal Weisse-Liste.de
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0440-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Pross, Lars-Henrik Averdunk, Josip Stjepanovic, Reinhard Busse, Alexander Geissler

Abstract

Quality of care public reporting provides structural, process and outcome information to facilitate hospital choice and strengthen quality competition. Yet, evidence indicates that patients rarely use this information in their decision-making, due to limited awareness of the data and complex and conflicting information. While there is enthusiasm among policy makers for public reporting, clinicians and researchers doubt its overall impact. Almost no study has analyzed how users behave on public reporting portals, which information they seek out and when they abort their search. This study employs web-usage mining techniques on server log data of 17 million user actions from Germany's premier provider transparency portal Weisse-Liste.de (WL.de) between 2012 and 2015. Postal code and ICD search requests facilitate identification of geographical and treatment area usage patterns. User clustering helps to identify user types based on parameters like session length, referrer and page topic visited. First-level markov chains illustrate common click paths and premature exits. In 2015, the WL.de Hospital Search portal had 2,750 daily users, with 25% mobile traffic, a bounce rate of 38% and 48% of users examining hospital quality information. From 2013 to 2015, user traffic grew at 38% annually. On average users spent 7 min on the portal, with 7.4 clicks and 54 s between clicks. Users request information for many oncologic and orthopedic conditions, for which no process or outcome quality indicators are available. Ten distinct user types, with particular usage patterns and interests, are identified. In particular, the different types of professional and non-professional users need to be addressed differently to avoid high premature exit rates at several key steps in the information search and view process. Of all users, 37% enter hospital information correctly upon entry, while 47% require support in their hospital search. Several onsite and offsite improvement options are identified. Public reporting needs to be directed at the interests of its users, with more outcome quality information for oncology and orthopedics. Customized reporting can cater to the different needs and skill levels of professional and non-professional users. Search engine optimization and hospital quality advocacy can increase website traffic.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Computer Science 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 12 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#4,456,142
of 14,549,948 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#538
of 1,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,882
of 268,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,549,948 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 268,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.