↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
1 tweeter


27 Dimensions

Readers on

22 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.
Published in
Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, January 2004
DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-1-6
Pubmed ID

Judith M Dwyer


BACKGROUND: In recent years, Australian state and territory governments have reviewed and restructured the health systems they lead and regulate. This paper examines the outcomes of the most recent official published reviews of systems and structures; identifies the common themes; and addresses two questions: what problems are being addressed? And how would we know if the changes were successful? RESULTS: In all the broad, systemic reviews, the main health system problems identified were money, hospital utilisation and a weak primary health care system. The solutions are various, but there is a common trend towards centralisation of governance, often at state health authority level, and stronger accountability measures. Other common themes are hospital substitution (services to avoid the need for admission); calls for cooperation across the Commonwealth:state divide, or for its abolition; and the expected range of current efficiency and effectiveness measures (eg amalgamate pathology and support services) and ideas in good currency (eg call centres). The top-down nature of the public review process is noted, along with the political nature of the immediate catalysts for calling on a review. CONCLUSION: The long-standing tension between the pull to centralisation of authority and the need for innovation in care models is heightened by recent changes, which may be counterproductive in an era dominated by the burden of chronic disease. I argue that the current reforms will not succeed in achieving the stated goals unless they make a difference for people with chronic illness. And if this is correct, the most useful focus for evaluation of the success of the reforms may be their impact on the system's ability to develop and deliver better models of care for this growing group of patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Canada 1 5%
Australia 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 18 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 August 2014.
All research outputs
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Australia and New Zealand Health Policy
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 221,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australia and New Zealand Health Policy
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 221,815 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 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