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 |
Headache service quality: evaluation of quality indicators in 14 specialist-care centres
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Headache and Pain, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s10194-016-0707-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Schramm, Derya Uluduz, Raquel Gil Gouveia, Rigmor Jensen, Aksel Siva, Ugur Uygunoglu, Giorgadze Gvantsa, Maka Mania, Mark Braschinsky, Elena Filatova, Nina Latysheva, Vera Osipova, Kirill Skorobogatykh, Julia Azimova, Andreas Straube, Ozan Emre Eren, Paolo Martelletti, Valerio De Angelis, Andrea Negro, Mattias Linde, Knut Hagen, Aleksandra Radojicic, Jasna Zidverc-Trajkovic, Ana Podgorac, Koen Paemeleire, Annelien De Pue, Christian Lampl, Timothy J. Steiner, Zaza Katsarava |
| Abstract |
The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard). Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this. This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,829,124
of 24,156,282 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#879
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,214
of 427,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,156,282 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. 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 427,531 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.