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 |
Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0747-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joost Johan Godert Wammes, M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle, Eva W. Verkerk, Simone A. van Dulmen, Gert P. Westert, Antoinette D. I. van Asselt, R. B. Kool |
| Abstract |
The term 'lower value services' concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted. Dutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease. A total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted. In this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 13 | 52% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 72% |
| Scientists | 4 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 20 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,894,217
of 24,909,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,329
of 3,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,509
of 427,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#25
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,909,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 427,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 64% of its contemporaries.