↓ Skip to main content

Developing indicators for measuring low-value care: mapping Choosing Wisely recommendations to hospital data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Developing indicators for measuring low-value care: mapping Choosing Wisely recommendations to hospital data
Published in
BMC Research Notes, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3270-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelsey Chalmers, Tim Badgery-Parker, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Jonathan Brett, Ian A. Scott, Adam G. Elshaug

Abstract

Low-value health care refers to interventions where the risk of harm or costs exceeds the likely benefit for a patient. We aimed to develop indicators of low-value care, based on selected Choosing Wisely (CW) recommendations, applicable to routinely collected, hospital claims data. We assessed 824 recommendations from the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom CW lists regarding their capacity to be measured in administrative hospital admissions datasets. We selected recommendations if they met the following criteria: the service occurred in the hospital setting (observable in setting); a claim recorded the use of the service (record of service); the appropriate/inappropriate use of the service could be mapped to information within the hospital claim (indication); and the service is consistently recorded in the claims (consistent documentation). We identified 17 recommendations (15 services) as measurable. We then developed low-value care indicators for two hospital datasets based on the selected recommendations, previously published indicators, and clinical input.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,139,094
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#117
of 4,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,477
of 332,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 332,827 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 97% of its contemporaries.