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 |
Structuring and validating a cost-effectiveness model of primary asthma prevention amongst children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G Feljandro P Ramos, Sandra Kuiper, Edward Dompeling, Antoinette DI van Asselt, Wim JC de Grauw, J André Knottnerus, Onno CP van Schayck, Tjard RJ Schermer, Johan L Severens |
| Abstract |
Given the rising number of asthma cases and the increasing costs of health care, prevention may be the best cure. Decisions regarding the implementation of prevention programmes in general and choosing between unifaceted and multifaceted strategies in particular are urgently needed. Existing trials on the primary prevention of asthma are, however, insufficient on their own to inform the decision of stakeholders regarding the cost-effectiveness of such prevention strategies. Decision analytic modelling synthesises available data for the cost-effectiveness evaluation of strategies in an explicit manner. Published reports on model development should provide the detail and transparency required to increase the acceptability of cost-effectiveness modelling. But, detail on the explicit steps and the involvement of experts in structuring a model is often unevenly reported. In this paper, we describe a procedure to structure and validate a model for the primary prevention of asthma in children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 5 | 63% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 28% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,954,592
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#900
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,163
of 142,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 142,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.