↓ Skip to main content

CareTrack Kids—part 1. Assessing the appropriateness of healthcare delivered to Australian children: study protocol for clinical indicator development

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
CareTrack Kids—part 1. Assessing the appropriateness of healthcare delivered to Australian children: study protocol for clinical indicator development
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007748
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise K Wiles, Tamara D Hooper, Peter D Hibbert, Les White, Nicole Mealing, Adam Jaffe, Christopher T Cowell, Mark F Harris, William B Runciman, Stan Goldstein, Andrew R Hallahan, John G Wakefield, Elisabeth Murphy, Annie Lau, Gavin Wheaton, Helena M Williams, Clifford Hughes, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Wiles, Louise K, Hooper, Tamara D, Hibbert, Peter D, White, Les, Mealing, Nicole, Jaffe, Adam, Cowell, Christopher T, Harris, Mark F, Runciman, William B, Goldstein, Stan, Hallahan, Andrew R, Wakefield, John G, Murphy, Elisabeth, Lau, Annie, Wheaton, Gavin, Williams, Helena M, Hughes, Clifford, Braithwaite, Jeffrey, L. K. Wiles, T. D. Hooper, P. D. Hibbert, L. White, N. Mealing, A. Jaffe, C. T. Cowell, M. F. Harris, W. B. Runciman, S. Goldstein, A. R. Hallahan, J. G. Wakefield, E. Murphy, A. Lau, G. Wheaton, H. M. Williams, C. Hughes, J. Braithwaite

Abstract

Despite the widespread availability of clinical guidelines, considerable gaps remain between the care that is recommended (appropriate care) and the care provided. This protocol describes a research methodology to develop clinical indicators for appropriate care for common paediatric conditions. We will identify conditions amenable to population-level appropriateness of care research and develop clinical indicators for each condition. Candidate conditions have been identified from published research; burden of disease, prevalence and frequency of presentation data; and quality of care priority lists. Clinical indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formatted with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Experts will review the indicators using a wiki-based approach and modified Delphi process. A formative evaluation of the wiki process will be undertaken. Human Research Ethics Committee approvals have been received from Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, and the Women's and Children's Health Network (South Australia). Applications are under review with Macquarie University and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 27 63%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Unspecified 3 7%
Psychology 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 27 63%

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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,354,789
of 6,569,769 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,557
of 4,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,969
of 169,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#160
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,569,769 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 169,964 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.