↓ Skip to main content

Using flawed, uncertain, proximate and sparse (FUPS) data in the context of complexity: learning from the case of child mental health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
68 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Using flawed, uncertain, proximate and sparse (FUPS) data in the context of complexity: learning from the case of child mental health
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1079-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miranda Wolpert, Harry Rutter

Abstract

The use of routinely collected data that are flawed and limited to inform service development in healthcare systems needs to be considered, both theoretically and practically, given the reality in many areas of healthcare that only poor-quality data are available for use in complex adaptive systems. Data may be compromised in a range of ways. They may be flawed, due to missing or erroneously recorded entries; uncertain, due to differences in how data items are rated or conceptualised; proximate, in that data items are a proxy for key issues of concern; and sparse, in that a low volume of cases within key subgroups may limit the possibility of statistical inference. The term 'FUPS' is proposed to describe these flawed, uncertain, proximate and sparse datasets. Many of the systems that seek to use FUPS data may be characterised as dynamic and complex, involving a wide range of agents whose actions impact on each other in reverberating ways, leading to feedback and adaptation. The literature on the use of routinely collected data in healthcare is often implicitly premised on the availability of high-quality data to be used in complicated but not necessarily complex systems. This paper presents an example of the use of a FUPS dataset in the complex system of child mental healthcare. The dataset comprised routinely collected data from services that were part of a national service transformation initiative in child mental health from 2011 to 2015. The paper explores the use of this FUPS dataset to support meaningful dialogue between key stakeholders, including service providers, funders and users, in relation to outcomes of services. There is a particular focus on the potential for service improvement and learning. The issues raised and principles for practice suggested have relevance for other health communities that similarly face the dilemma of how to address the gap between the ideal of comprehensive clear data used in complicated, but not complex, contexts, and the reality of FUPS data in the context of complexity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Researcher 15 25%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 35%
Psychology 9 15%
Social Sciences 7 12%
Computer Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#533,948
of 16,575,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#421
of 2,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,786
of 282,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,575,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 282,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them