↓ Skip to main content

Confronting the quality paradox: towards new characterisations of ‘quality’ in contemporary healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Confronting the quality paradox: towards new characterisations of ‘quality’ in contemporary healthcare
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0851-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Swinglehurst, Nathan Emmerich, Jo Maybin, Sophie Park, Sally Quilligan

Abstract

This editorial introduces the special Biomed Central cross-journal collection The Many Meanings of 'Quality' in Healthcare: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, setting out the context for the development of the collection, and presenting brief summaries of all the included papers in three broad themes 1) the practices of assuring quality in healthcare 2) giving 'space to the story' 3) addressing moral complexity in the clinic, the classroom and the academy. The editorial concludes with reflections on some of the key messages that emerge from the papers which are relevant to policymakers and practitioners who seek to improve the quality of healthcare.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 7 12%
Professor 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Social Sciences 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 29 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,514,619
of 21,242,513 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#530
of 7,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,962
of 246,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#12
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,242,513 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 246,045 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 164 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 93% of its contemporaries.