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 |
Who pays and who benefits? How different models of shared responsibilities between formal and informal carers influence projections of costs of dementia management
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2011
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-793 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Victor Vickland, Joel Werner, Thomas Morris, Geoff McDonnell, Brian Draper, Lee-Fay Low, Henry Brodaty |
Abstract |
The few studies that have attempted to estimate the future cost of caring for people with dementia in Australia are typically based on total prevalence and the cost per patient over the average duration of illness. However, costs associated with dementia care also vary according to the length of the disease, severity of symptoms and type of care provided. This study aimed to determine more accurately the future costs of dementia management by taking these factors into consideration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 2 | 50% |
United States | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
Cuba | 2 | 4% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 42 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 9 | 19% |
Researcher | 7 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
Professor | 3 | 6% |
Other | 9 | 19% |
Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 9 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
Other | 10 | 21% |
Unknown | 12 | 26% |
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 02 September 2021.
All research outputs
#5,611,612
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,544
of 14,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,738
of 135,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#58
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 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 14,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 135,954 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 201 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 69% of its contemporaries.