↓ Skip to main content

Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-13-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison J Young, Robert F Terry, John-Arne Røttingen, Roderik F Viergever

Abstract

Better estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are needed as an important source of information for advancing countries' health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration. We outline the steps that need to be taken to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' expenditures on health R&D, describe that an ideal approach would involve the use of international sets of deflators and exchange rates that are specific to health R&D activities, and explain which methods should be used given the current absence of such health R&D-specific deflators and exchange rates. Finally, we describe what should be the way forward in improving our ability to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' health R&D expenditures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 9%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,476,102
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#354
of 1,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,150
of 356,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 356,054 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.