↓ Skip to main content

Assessing regression to the mean effects in health care initiatives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Assessing regression to the mean effects in health care initiatives
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariel Linden

Abstract

Interventions targeting individuals classified as "high-risk" have become common-place in health care. High-risk may represent outlier values on utilization, cost, or clinical measures. Typically, such individuals are invited to participate in an intervention intended to reduce their level of risk, and after a period of time, a follow-up measurement is taken. However, individuals initially identified by their outlier values will likely have lower values on re-measurement in the absence of an intervention. This statistical phenomenon is known as "regression to the mean" (RTM) and often leads to an inaccurate conclusion that the intervention caused the effect. Concerns about RTM are rarely raised in connection with most health care interventions, and it is uncommon to find evaluators who estimate its effect. This may be due to lack of awareness, cognitive biases that may cause people to systematically misinterpret RTM effects by creating (erroneous) explanations to account for it, or by design.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sudan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Professor 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 31%
Psychology 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 29 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#845,341
of 17,896,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#110
of 1,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,278
of 178,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,896,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 178,169 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them