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 |
Projecting the effects of long-term care policy on the labor market participation of primary informal family caregivers of elderly with disability: insights from a dynamic simulation model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0243-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John P. Ansah, David B. Matchar, Rahul Malhotra, Sean R. Love, Chang Liu, Young Do |
| Abstract |
Using Singapore as a case study, this paper aims to understand the effects of the current long-term care policy and various alternative policy options on the labor market participation of primary informal family caregivers of elderly with disability. A model of the long-term care system in Singapore was developed using System Dynamics methodology. Under the current long-term care policy, by 2030, 6.9 percent of primary informal family caregivers (0.34 percent of the domestic labor supply) are expected to withdraw from the labor market. Alternative policy options reduce primary informal family caregiver labor market withdrawal; however, the number of workers required to scale up long-term care services is greater than the number of caregivers who can be expected to return to the labor market. Policymakers may face a dilemma between admitting more foreign workers to provide long-term care services and depending on primary informal family caregivers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,228,333
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,948
of 3,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,208
of 300,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#29
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 300,567 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.