↓ Skip to main content

Why Economic Analysis of Health System Improvement Interventions Matters

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 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
Why Economic Analysis of Health System Improvement Interventions Matters
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00218
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward Ivor Broughton, Lani Marquez

Abstract

There is little evidence to direct health systems toward providing efficient interventions to address medical errors, defined as an unintended act of omission or commission or one not executed as intended that may or may not cause harm to the patient but does not achieve its intended outcome. We believe that lack of guidance on what is the most efficient way to reduce medical errors and improve the quality of health-care limits the scale-up of health system improvement interventions. Challenges to economic evaluation of these interventions include defining and implementing improvement interventions in different settings with high fidelity, capturing all of the positive and negative effects of the intervention, using process measures of effectiveness rather than health outcomes, and determining the full cost of the intervention and all economic consequences of its effects. However, health system improvement interventions should be treated similarly to individual medical interventions and undergo rigorous economic evaluation to provide actionable evidence to guide policy-makers in decisions of resource allocation for improvement activities among other competing demands for health-care resources.

X Demographics

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.
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 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,094,832
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,930
of 10,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,435
of 320,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#16
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 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 10,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 320,020 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.