↓ Skip to main content

Considerations for Assessing the Appropriateness of High-Cost Pediatric Care in Low-Income Regions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Considerations for Assessing the Appropriateness of High-Cost Pediatric Care in Low-Income Regions
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew C. Argent

Abstract

It may be difficult to predict the consequences of provision of high-cost pediatric care (HCC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and these consequences may be different to those experienced in high-income countries. An evaluation of the implications of HCC in LMICs must incorporate considerations of the specific context in that country (population age profile, profile of disease, resources available), likely costs of the HCC, likely benefits that can be gained versus the costs that will be incurred. Ideally, the process that is followed in decision making around HCC should be transparent and should involve the communities that will be most affected by those decisions. It is essential that the impacts of provision of HCC are carefully monitored so that informed decisions can be made about future provision medical interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Other 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 45%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,967,261
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#656
of 6,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,387
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#26
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 330,033 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.