↓ Skip to main content

Comparing patient care seeking pathways in three models of hospital and TB programme collaboration in China

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Comparing patient care seeking pathways in three models of hospital and TB programme collaboration in China
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-93
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolin Wei, Guanyang Zou, Jia Yin, John Walley, Qiang Sun

Abstract

Public hospitals in China play an important role in tuberculosis (TB) control. Three models of hospital and TB control exist in China. The dispensary model is the most common one in which a TB dispensary provides both clinical and public health care. The specialist model is similar to the former except that a specialist TB hospital is located in the same area. The specialist hospital should treat only complicated TB cases but it also treats simple cases in practice. The integrated model is a new development to integrate TB service in public hospitals. Patients were diagnosed, treated and followed up in this public hospital in this model while the TB dispensary provides public health service as case reporting and mass education. This study aims to compare patient care seeking pathways under the three models, and to provide policy recommendation for the TB control system reform in China.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
India 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 72 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 March 2013.
All research outputs
#13,870,670
of 21,344,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,785
of 7,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,228
of 170,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,344,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 170,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them