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 |
The cost-effectiveness challenge: is it worth it?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13195-015-0095-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Knapp |
| Abstract |
Scarcity of resources means that difficult choices have to be made about how to use them. Cost-effectiveness evidence provides a way to help decision-makers get 'best value' from their resources when choosing between two or more clinical or other interventions. Often it is found that one intervention has better outcomes than another, but also costs more. In these circumstances there is a need for the decision-maker to reach a view as to whether those better outcomes are 'worth' the higher costs, necessitating difficult trade-offs. Illustrations from the dementia field are given to illustrate how these trade-offs might be made. For strategic decisions it has often proved helpful to use a generic outcome measure such as the quality-adjusted life year. The fundamental aim of a healthcare system is not to save money, but to save and improve lives. Cost-effectiveness and similar analyses can help by showing how to get the most out of available resources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| Ireland | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 26% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,444,784
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#979
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,520
of 352,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 352,883 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 52% of its contemporaries.