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 |
An evaluation of data quality in Canada’s Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS): secondary analyses of Ontario data submitted between 1996 and 2011
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-27 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John P Hirdes, Jeff W Poss, Hilary Caldarelli, Brant E Fries, John N Morris, Gary F Teare, Kristen Reidel, Norma Jutan |
| Abstract |
Evidence informed decision making in health policy development and clinical practice depends on the availability of valid and reliable data. The introduction of interRAI assessment systems in many countries has provided valuable new information that can be used to support case mix based payment systems, quality monitoring, outcome measurement and care planning. The Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS) managed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information has served as a data repository supporting national implementation of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI 2.0) in Canada for more than 15 years. The present paper aims to evaluate data quality for the CCRS using an approach that may be generalizable to comparable data holdings internationally. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 67% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
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 05 December 2020.
All research outputs
#15,564,886
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,167
of 2,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,743
of 197,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#30
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 197,243 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.