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 |
Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Axel C. Mühlbacher, Anika Kaczynski, Peter Zweifel, F. Reed Johnson |
| Abstract |
Best-worst scaling (BWS), also known as maximum-difference scaling, is a multiattribute approach to measuring preferences. BWS aims at the analysis of preferences regarding a set of attributes, their levels or alternatives. It is a stated-preference method based on the assumption that respondents are capable of making judgments regarding the best and the worst (or the most and least important, respectively) out of three or more elements of a choice-set. As is true of discrete choice experiments (DCE) generally, BWS avoids the known weaknesses of rating and ranking scales while holding the promise of generating additional information by making respondents choose twice, namely the best as well as the worst criteria. A systematic literature review found 53 BWS applications in health and healthcare. This article expounds possibilities of application, the underlying theoretical concepts and the implementation of BWS in its three variants: 'object case', 'profile case', 'multiprofile case'. This paper contains a survey of BWS methods and revolves around study design, experimental design, and data analysis. Moreover the article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of BWS distinguished and offered an outlook. A companion paper focuses on special issues of theory and statistical inference confronting BWS in preference measurement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Colombia | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 38 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 8% |
| Engineering | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 21% |
| Unknown | 45 | 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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,042,254
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#95
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,129
of 396,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 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 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 396,272 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.