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 |
The public’s voice about healthcare quality regulation policies. A population-based survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-015-0992-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renée Bouwman, Manja Bomhoff, Judith D. de Jong, Paul Robben, Roland Friele |
| Abstract |
In the wake of various high-profile incidents in a number of countries, regulators of healthcare quality have been criticised for their 'soft' approach. In politics, concerns were expressed about public confidence. It was claimed that there are discrepancies between public opinions related to values and the values guiding regulation policies. Although the general public are final clients of regulators' work, their opinion has only been discussed in research to a limited extent. The aim of this study is to explore possible discrepancies between public values and opinions and current healthcare quality regulation policies. A questionnaire was submitted to 1500 members of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel. Questions were developed around central ideas underlying healthcare quality regulation policies. The response rate was 58.3 %. The regulator was seen as being more responsible for quality of care than care providers. Patients were rated as having the least responsibility. Similar patterns were observed for the food service industry and the education sector. Complaints by patients' associations were seen as an important source of information for quality regulation, while fewer respondents trusted information delivered by care providers. However, respondents supported the regulator's imposition of lighter measures firstly. There are discrepancies and similarities between public opinion and regulation policies. The discrepancies correspond to fundamental concepts; decentralisation of responsibilities is not what the public wants. There is little confidence in the regulator's use of information obtained by care providers' internal monitoring, while a larger role is seen for complaints of patient organisations. This discrepancy seems not to exist regarding the regulator's approach of imposing measures. A gradual, and often soft approach, is favoured by the majority of the public in spite of the criticism that is voiced in the media regarding this approach. Our study contributes to the limited knowledge of public opinion on government regulation policies. This knowledge is needed in order to effectively assess different approaches to involve the public in regulation policies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 23% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,820,309
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,865
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,266
of 266,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#64
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 266,870 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.