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 |
How to improve the equity of health financial sources? - Simulation and analysis of total health expenditure of one Chinese province on system dynamics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-015-0203-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xin Wang, Yuanling Sun, Xin Mu, Li Guan, Jingjie Li |
| Abstract |
We simulate and analyze Total Health Expenditure (THE) in financial sources and other economic indicators (such as THE per capita, GDP, etc.) in a province of China from 2002 to 2012 on System Dynamics. Based on actual data and certain mathematical methods, we use system dynamic software to construct a logic model for THE and changing proportions, and thus simulate the actual conditions of development and changes in THE. According to the simulation results, the government possess the largest investment in the average annual growth rate of THE, which was 25.16 % in 2012. Social investment comprises the majority of the possession ratio, which was up to 41.20 %. The personal investment growth rate decreased by almost 21 %, but the total amount of personal investment increased by 28075 million yuan, which is far higher than the increase in government investment. Individuals are still the main carriers of health care expenses. The equity of health financial sources is still poor. The System Dynamics method used in this paper identifies a dynamic measurement process, provides a scientific basis for simulation and analysis of the changes in THE and its key constraining factors, as well as put forward suggestions for the improvement of equity of health financial sources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,425,370
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,726
of 1,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,969
of 267,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 267,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.