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 effects of price regulation and freedom of choice on quality: evidence from the physiotherapy market
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13561-017-0158-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Piia Pekola, Ismo Linnosmaa, Hennamari Mikkola |
| Abstract |
In health care, many aspects of the delivery of services are subject to regulation. Often the purpose of the regulated health care system is to encourage providers to keep costs down without skimping on quality. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the effect of price regulation and free choice on quality in physiotherapy organised by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland for the disabled individuals.We use the difference-in-differences method in our effort to isolate the effect of the regulation and for this task we have defined the regulated and non-regulated firms and their quality before and after the regulation. The variables needed in the econometric modelling were collected from several registers as well as by carrying out questionnaires on the firms.We show that price regulation decreased quality in physiotherapy statistically significantly and the mechanism was unable to incentivise firms to invest in quality. Most likely, our results are caused by cost reduction associated with price regulation. It seems that cost reduction was carried out through quality reductions in physiotherapy instead of increasing productivity. The result is sensible because comparable quality information is not published to support patient choice in this sector. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 22% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 28% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,069,530
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#198
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,015
of 316,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 316,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.