↓ Skip to main content

Coordination between primary and secondary care: the role of electronic messages and economic incentives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
272 Mendeley
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
Coordination between primary and secondary care: the role of electronic messages and economic incentives
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2096-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonella La Rocca, Thomas Hoholm

Abstract

In Norway, a government reform has recently been introduced to enhance coordination between primary and secondary care. This paper examines the effects of two newly introduced measures to improve the coordination: an ICT-based communication tool/standard and an economic incentive scheme. This qualitative study is based primarily on 27 open-ended interviews. We interviewed nine employees at a hospital (the focal actor), 17 employees from seven different municipalities, and a representative of a Regional Health Authority. ICT-based communication is perceived to facilitate information exchange between primary and secondary care, thus positively affecting coordination. However, the economic incentive scheme appears to have the opposite effect by creating tensions between the two organizations and accentuating power asymmetry in favor of secondary care. The inter-organizational nature of coordination in health care makes it crucial for policymakers and management of care organizations to conceive incentives and instruments that work jointly across organizations rather than at only one of the health care organizations involved. Such an approach is likely to favor a more symmetrical pattern of collaboration between primary and secondary care.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 272 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Student > Master 36 13%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 71 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 41 15%
Computer Science 38 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 35 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 7%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 82 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,413,129
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,156
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,883
of 309,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#150
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 309,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.