↓ Skip to main content

Extent, regional variation and impact of gynecologist payment models in routine pelvic examinations: a nationwide cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Extent, regional variation and impact of gynecologist payment models in routine pelvic examinations: a nationwide cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Women's Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12905-017-0471-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingvild Mathiesen Rosenlund, Linda Leivseth, Ingard Nilsen, Olav Helge Førde, Arthur Revhaug

Abstract

Based on moderate quality evidence, routine pelvic examination is strongly recommended against in asymptomatic women. The aims of this study was to quantify the extent of routine pelvic examinations within specialized health care in Norway, to assess if the use of these services differs across hospital referral regions and to assess if the use of colposcopy and ultrasound differs with gynecologists' payment models. Nationwide cross-sectional study including all women aged 18 years and older in Norway in the years 2014-16 (2,038,747). Data was extracted from the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. The main outcome measures were 1. The number of appointments per 1000 women with a primary diagnosis of "Encounter for gynecological examination without complaint, suspected or reported diagnosis." 2. The age-standardized number of these appointments per 1000 women in the 21 different hospital referral regions of Norway. 3. The use of colposcopy and ultrasound in routine pelvic examinations, provided by gynecologists with fixed salaries and gynecologists paid by a fee-for-service model. Annually 22.2 out of every 1000 women in Norway had a routine pelvic examination, with variation across regions from 6.6 to 43.9 per 1000. Gynecologists with fixed salaries performed colposcopy in 1.6% and ultrasound in 74.5% of appointments. Corresponding numbers for fee-for-service gynecologists were 49.2% and 96.2%, respectively. Routine pelvic examinations are widely performed in Norway. The variation across regions is extensive. Our results strongly indicate that fee-for-service payments for gynecologists skyrocket the use of colposcopy and increase the use of ultrasound in pelvic examinations of asymptomatic women.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,806,116
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#576
of 1,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,288
of 437,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#12
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 437,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.