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 |
Patients as consumers of health care in South Africa: the ethical and legal implications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirsten Rowe, Keymanthri Moodley |
| Abstract |
South Africa currently has a pluralistic health care system with separate public and private sectors. It is, however, moving towards a socialised model with the introduction of National Health Insurance. The South African legislative environment has changed recently with the promulgation of the Consumer Protection Act and proposed amendments to the National Health Act. Patients can now be viewed as consumers from a legal perspective. This has various implications for health care systems, health care providers and the doctor-patient relationship. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Cameroon | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 215 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 60 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 7% |
| Researcher | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 18% |
| Unknown | 56 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 13 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 59 | 27% |
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 30 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,885,035
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#729
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,135
of 197,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 197,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.