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
| Title |
What Should Leaders Do When Inefficiency Is Perceived as a Cost of Inclusivity in Strategic Planning Processes in Health Care?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.ecas2-1711 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aveena Kochar, Alia Chisty |
| Abstract |
During the development of new health care policies, quality improvement teams can face the challenge of weighing differing opinions within the group that can hinder progress. It is essential in such cases to refer to the four keys principles of quality improvement (QI) as a guide to enhance group cooperation and promote development of the mutual objective. Co-production is a model that emphasizes the participation of the patient-a service receiver-in the production of services being rendered by the health care professional. By putting into practice the QI principles and using the model of co-production, quality improvement teams can improve efficiency of health systems and clinical outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 States | 15 | 35% |
| Finland | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Philippines | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 19% |
| Scientists | 6 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Psychology | 2 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |