↓ Skip to main content

Regional differences in health care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Germany

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Regional differences in health care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Germany
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0067-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ansgar Lange, Anne Prenzler, Oliver Bachmann, Roland Linder, Sarah Neubauer, Jan Zeidler, Michael P. Manns, J.-Matthias von der Schulenburg

Abstract

The regional availability of specialized physicians is an important aspect in healthcare of patients with IBD. The association between physician density and healthcare is not yet clear. Most studies did not consider district type, which reflects population density. Our research question was, "Do specialist density and district type influence the healthcare of IBD patients in Germany?" We combined a claims dataset from a German health insurance fund with population and physician data. Four main aspects were investigated: regular specialist visits, drug therapies, surveillance colonoscopy, and IBD-related hospitalizations. Various regression analyses were performed. The study cohort was comprised of 21,771 individuals, including 9282 patients with Crohn disease and 12,489 patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients who were living in districts with higher specialist densities were more likely to attend specialist visits on a regular basis. No difference in the frequencies of TNF-alpha inhibitor therapies was found. However, individuals from urban areas were more likely to receive a permanent immunosuppressive therapy with continuous specialist support. The results revealed that some aspects had positive effects on the probability of implementing healthcare in accordance with pathways and guidelines. No clear evidence of a general healthcare undersupply in rural areas was found.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Postgraduate 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#332
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,437
of 280,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 280,050 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.