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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-89 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natasha Kareem Brusco, Jennifer J Watts, Nora Shields, Nicholas F Taylor |
| Abstract |
Providing additional Saturday rehabilitation can improve functional independence and health related quality of life at discharge and it may reduce patient length of stay, yet the economic implications are not known. The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,189,079
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,827
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,097
of 226,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#37
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 226,522 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.