↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the implementation of centralized waiting lists for patients without a family physician and their effects across the province of Quebec

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Evaluation of the implementation of centralized waiting lists for patients without a family physician and their effects across the province of Quebec
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0117-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mylaine Breton, Astrid Brousselle, Antoine Boivin, Christine Loignon, Nassera Touati, Carl-Ardy Dubois, Kareen Nour, Djamal Berbiche, Danièle Roberge

Abstract

Most national and provincial commissions on healthcare services in Canada over the past decade have recommended that primary care services be strengthened in order to guarantee each citizen access to a family physician. Despite these recommendations, finding a family physician continues to be problematic. The issue of enrollment with a family physician is worrying in Canada, where nearly 21% of the country's population reported not having a family physician in the last Commonwealth Fund survey.To respond to this important need, centralized waiting lists have been implemented in four Canadian provinces to help 'orphan,' or unaffiliated, patients find a family physician. These organizational mechanisms are intended to better coordinate the demand for and supply of family physicians. The objectives of this study are: to assess the effects of centralized waiting lists for orphan patients (GACOs) implemented in the province of Quebec and to explain the variation among their effects by analyzing factors influencing implementation process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Other 6 14%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Social Sciences 7 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 11 25%
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 05 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,305,567
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,403
of 237,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#54
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 237,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.