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 |
Convergence and determinants of health expenditures in OECD countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13561-017-0164-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Son Hong Nghiem, Luke Brian Connelly |
| Abstract |
This study examines the trend and determinants of health expenditures in OECD countries over the 1975-2004 period. Based on recent developments in the economic growth literature we propose and test the hypothesis that health care expenditures in countries of similar economic development level may converge. We hypothesise that the main drivers for growth in health care costs include: aging population, technological progress and health insurance. The results reveal no evidence that health expenditures among OECD countries converge. Nevertheless, there is evidence of convergence among three sub-groups of countries. We found that the main driver of health expenditure is technological progress. Our results also suggest that health care is a (national) necessity, not a luxury good as some other studies in this field have found. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 5 | 19% |
| United States | 4 | 15% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 73% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 201 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 16% |
| Unknown | 83 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 37 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 88 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,887,031
of 25,809,907 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#28
of 515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,482
of 328,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 328,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
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.