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 |
Paying for the quantity and quality of hospital care: the foundations and evolution of payment policy in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13561-015-0050-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katja Grašič, Anne R. Mason, Andrew Street |
| Abstract |
Prospective payment arrangements are now the main form of hospital funding in most developed countries. An essential component of such arrangements is the classification system used to differentiate patients according to their expected resource requirements. In this article we describe the evolution and structure of Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) in England and the way in which costs are calculated for patients allocated to each HRG. We then describe how payments are made, how policy has evolved to incentivise improvements in quality, and how prospective payment is being applied outside hospital settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 3 | 27% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| Portugal | 1 | 9% |
| Senegal | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 13 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
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 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,660,710
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#86
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,334
of 266,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 266,093 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.