↓ Skip to main content

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-10-153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jakub Adamski, Brian Godman, Gabriella Ofierska-Sujkowska, Bogusława Osińska, Harald Herholz, Kamila Wendykowska, Ott Laius, Saira Jan, Catherine Sermet, Corrine Zara, Marija Kalaba, Roland Gustafsson, Kristina Garuolienè, Alan Haycox, Silvio Garattini, Lars L Gustafsson

Abstract

There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes.

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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 183 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 30%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Other 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 30 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 8%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 34 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,387,845
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#522
of 5,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,099
of 225,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 225,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.