↓ Skip to main content

Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 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
Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-454
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noor Tromp, Rob Baltussen

Abstract

In rationing decisions in health, many criteria like costs, effectiveness, equity and feasibility concerns play a role. These criteria stem from different disciplines that all aim to inform health care rationing decisions, but a single underlying concept that incorporates all criteria does not yet exist. Therefore, we aim to develop a conceptual mapping of criteria, based on the World Health Organization's Health Systems Performance and Health Systems Building Blocks frameworks. This map can be an aid to decision makers to identify the relevant criteria for priority setting in their specific context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 164 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 20%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Other 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 29 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 28%
Social Sciences 23 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 37 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,285,087
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#374
of 8,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,542
of 291,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 291,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.