↓ Skip to main content

CareTrack Kids—part 2. Assessing the appropriateness of the healthcare delivered to Australian children: study protocol for a retrospective medical record review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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 2. Assessing the appropriateness of the healthcare delivered to Australian children: study protocol for a retrospective medical record review
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007749
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamara D Hooper, Peter D Hibbert, Nicole Mealing, Louise K Wiles, Adam Jaffe, Les White, 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, Hooper, Tamara D, Hibbert, Peter D, Mealing, Nicole, Wiles, Louise K, Jaffe, Adam, White, Les, 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, T. D. Hooper, P. D. Hibbert, N. Mealing, L. K. Wiles, A. Jaffe, L. White, 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

Australian and international clinical practice guidelines are available for common paediatric conditions. Yet there is evidence that there are substantial variations between the guidelines, recommendations (appropriate care) and the care delivered. This paper describes a study protocol to determine the appropriateness of the healthcare delivered to Australian children for 16 common paediatric conditions in acute and primary healthcare settings. A random sample of 6000-8000 medical records representing a cross-section of the Australian paediatric population will be reviewed for appropriateness of care against a set of indicators within three Australian states (New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia) using multistage, stratified sampling. Medical records of children aged <16 years who presented with at least one of the study conditions during 2012 and 2013 will be reviewed. Human Research Ethics Committee approvals have been received from the Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service and Women's and Children's Hospital Network (South Australia). An application is under review for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The authors will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer oral presentations to researchers, clinicians and policymakers at national and international conferences.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Unspecified 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 21%
Unspecified 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#2,920,768
of 6,569,769 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,062
of 4,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,405
of 195,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#181
of 257 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 52nd 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 195,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.