↓ Skip to main content

Comparing efficiency of health systems across industrialized countries: a panel analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Comparing efficiency of health systems across industrialized countries: a panel analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1084-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bianca K. Frogner, H.E. Frech, Stephen T. Parente

Abstract

Rankings from the World Health Organization (WHO) place the US health care system as one of the least efficient among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Researchers have questioned this, noting simplistic or inappropriate methodologies, poor measurement choice, and poor control variables. Our objective is to re-visit this question by using newer modeling techniques and a large panel of OECD data. We primarily use the OECD Health Data for 25 OECD countries. We compare results from stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) and fixed effects models. We estimate total life expectancy as well as life expectancy at age 60. We explore a combination of control variables reflecting health care resources, health behaviors, and economic and environmental factors. The US never ranks higher than fifth out of all 36 models, but is also never the very last ranked country though it was close in several models. The SFA estimation approach produces the most consistent lead country, but the remaining countries did not maintain a steady rank. Our study sheds light on the fragility of health system rankings by using a large panel and applying the latest efficiency modeling techniques. The rankings are not robust to different statistical approaches, nor to variable inclusion decisions. Future international comparisons should employ a range of methodologies to generate a more nuanced portrait of health care system efficiency.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 22 28%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,252,334
of 16,713,463 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,536
of 5,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,139
of 252,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,713,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 252,130 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them