↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring access to nationally commissioned services in England

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Monitoring access to nationally commissioned services in England
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-7-85
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Coles, Kate Haire, Tom Kenny, Edmund G Jessop

Abstract

For over 20 years, the National Health Service in England has run a system of national planning for highly specialised healthcare services. The aim is to ensure that very rare diseases are treated, and very complex procedures performed, in only a few centres, each of which maintains a volume high enough to maintain excellent outcomes. The commissioning strategy for the provision of these national services in England is strongly centralising. Centralising does however create a duty to ensure that patients distant from the treatment centres are not thereby disadvantaged. The commissioning process ensures sufficient capacity to treat the entire national caseload of clinically eligible patients. The aim of this paper is to apply the Systematic Component of Variation (SCV) to study access to services commissioned by the National Specialised Commissioning Team (NSCT) in England. The discussion focuses on the potential explanations for a high level of systematic variation between areas and on the use of the SCV to support the monitoring and development of these nationally commissioned services.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 December 2016.
All research outputs
#5,894,723
of 18,796,975 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#819
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,449
of 163,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,796,975 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 163,657 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.