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 |
No theory: an explanation of the lack of consistency in cross-country health care comparisons using non-parametric estimators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13561-016-0118-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Gearhart |
| Abstract |
Since 2000 several papers have examined the efficiency of healthcare delivery systems worldwide. These papers have extended the literature using drastically different input and output combinations from one another, with little theoretical or empirical support backing these specifications. Issues arise that many of these inputs and outputs are available for a subset of OECD countries each year. Using a common estimator and the different specifications proposed leads to the result that efficiency rankings across papers can diverge quite significantly, with several countries being highly efficient in one specification and highly inefficient in another. Broad input-output measures that are collected annually provide consistent efficiency rankings across specifications, compared to specifications that utilize specific measures collected infrequently. This paper also finds that broad output measures that are not quality-adjusted, such as life expectancy, seem to be a suitable alternative for infrequently collected quality-adjusted output measures, such as disability adjusted life years. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 33% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 22% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,468,369
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#333
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,295
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.