↓ Skip to main content

Methods for the evaluation of hospital cooperation activities (Systematic review protocol)

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Methods for the evaluation of hospital cooperation activities (Systematic review protocol)
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-1-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Rotter, Daniela Popa, Beatrice Riley, Tim Ellermann, Ulrike Ryll, Genc Burazeri, Piet Daemen, Guy Peeters, Helmut Brand

Abstract

Hospital partnerships, mergers and cooperatives are arrangements frequently seen as a means of improving health service delivery. Many of the assumptions used in planning hospital cooperatives are not stated clearly and are often based on limited or poor scientific evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Librarian 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 February 2012.
All research outputs
#12,736,046
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,341
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,845
of 248,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 248,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.