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 |
‘Cosmetic boob jobs’ or evidence-based breast surgery: an interpretive policy analysis of the rationing of ‘low value’ treatments in the English National Health Service
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-413 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jill Russell, Deborah Swinglehurst, Trisha Greenhalgh |
| Abstract |
In England the National Health Service (NHS) is not allowed to impose 'blanket bans' on treatments, but local commissioners produce lists of 'low value' procedures that they will normally not fund. Breast surgery is one example. However, evidence suggests that some breast surgery is clinically effective, with significant health gain. National guidelines indicate the circumstances under which breast surgery should be made available on the NHS, but there is widespread variation in their implementation.The purpose of this study was to explore the work practices of 'individual funding request' (IFR) panels, as they considered 'one-off' funding requests for breast surgery; examine how the notion of 'value' is dialogically constructed, and how decisions about who is deserving of NHS funding and who is not are accomplished in practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 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 | 58 | 38% |
| United States | 10 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Ireland | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Papua New Guinea | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 67 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 80 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 40 | 26% |
| Scientists | 27 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#449,057
of 25,810,956 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#74
of 8,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,274
of 262,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,810,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 262,474 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.