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 |
The calculation of quality indicators for long term care facilities in 8 countries (SHELTER project)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-138 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dinnus HM Frijters, Henriëtte G van der Roest, Iain GI Carpenter, Harriet Finne-Soveri, Jean-Claude Henrard, Angela Chetrit, Jacob Gindin, Roberto Bernabei |
| Abstract |
Performance indicators in the long term care sector are important to evaluate the efficiency and quality of care delivery. We are, however, still far from being able to refer to a common set of indicators at the European level.We therefore demonstrate the calculation of Long Term Care Facility Quality Indicators (LTCFQIs) from data of the European Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm Care (SHELTER) project. We explain how risk factors are taken into account and show how LTC facilities at facility and country level can be compared on quality of care using thresholds and a Quality Indicator sum measure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Ghana | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
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 22 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,371,145
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,650
of 7,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,915
of 197,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#58
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 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 7,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 197,213 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.