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 |
Intellectual capital in the healthcare sector: a systematic review and critique of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-015-1234-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenna M. Evans, Adalsteinn Brown, G. Ross Baker |
| Abstract |
Variations in the performance of healthcare organizations may be partly explained by differing "stocks" of intellectual capital (IC), and differing approaches and capacities for leveraging IC. This study synthesizes what is currently known about the conceptualization, management and measurement of IC in healthcare through a review of the literature. Peer-reviewed papers on IC in healthcare published between 1990 and 2014 were identified through searches of five databases using the following key terms: intellectual capital/assets, knowledge capital/assets/resources, and intangible assets/resources. Articles deemed relevant for inclusion underwent systematic data extraction to identify overarching themes and were assessed for their methodological quality. Thirty-seven papers were included in the review. The primary research method used was cross-sectional questionnaires focused on hospital managers' perceptions of IC, followed by semi-structured interviews and analysis of administrative data. Empirical studies suggest that IC is linked to subjective process and performance indicators in healthcare organizations. Although the literature on IC in healthcare is growing, it is not advanced. In this paper, we identify and examine the conceptual, theoretical and methodological limitations of the literature. The concept and framework of IC offer a means to study the value of intangible resources in healthcare organizations, how to manage systematically these resources together, and their mutually enhancing interactions on performance. We offer several recommendations for future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 183 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 60 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 58 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 63 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,110,018
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,837
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,900
of 390,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#33
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 390,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 67% of its contemporaries.