↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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 the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry WW Potts, Janet E Anderson, Lacey Colligan, Paul Leach, Sheena Davis, Jon Berman

Abstract

Prospective Hazard Analysis techniques such as Healthcare Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) and Structured What If Technique (SWIFT) have the potential to increase safety by identifying risks before an adverse event occurs. Published accounts of their application in healthcare have identified benefits, but the reliability of some methods has been found to be low. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of SWIFT and HFMEA by comparing their outputs in the process of risk assessment, and comparing the results with risks identified by retrospective methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 96 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 8 8%
Professor 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Engineering 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Computer Science 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 25 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,195,060
of 21,669,705 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#880
of 7,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,787
of 289,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,669,705 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 289,303 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 90% 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