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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 10 | 71% |
United States | 1 | 7% |
Spain | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
Scientists | 4 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 119 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 30 | 24% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 16% |
Researcher | 11 | 9% |
Other | 5 | 4% |
Professor | 5 | 4% |
Other | 25 | 20% |
Unknown | 27 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 18% |
Engineering | 15 | 12% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
Other | 33 | 27% |
Unknown | 33 | 27% |
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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,731,539
of 25,119,447 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,152
of 8,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,678
of 320,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#15
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,119,447 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 8,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 320,967 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 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.