↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency of the implementation of cardiovascular risk management in primary care practices: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Efficiency of the implementation of cardiovascular risk management in primary care practices: an observational study
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0434-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eddy M. M. Adang, Anne Gerritsma, Elvira Nouwens, Jan van Lieshout, Michel Wensing

Abstract

This study aimed to document the variation in technical efficiency of primary care (PC) practices in delivering evidence-based cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and to identify associated factors. This observational study was based on the follow-up measurements in a cluster randomized trial. Patients were recruited from 41 general practices in the Netherlands, involving 106 GPs and 1671 patients. Data on clinical performance were collected from patient records. The analysis focused on PC practices and used a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Bias-corrected DEA technical efficiency scores for each PC practice were generated, followed by regression analysis with practice efficiency as outcomes and organizational features of general practice as predictors. Not all PC practices delivered recommended CVRM with the same technical efficiency; a significant difference from the efficient frontier was found (p < .000; 95 % CI 1.018-1.041). The variation in technical efficiency between PC practices was associated with training practice status (p = .026). Whether CVRM clinical tasks were performed by a practice nurse or a GP did not influence technical efficiency in a statistical significant way neither did practice size. Technical efficiency in delivering evidence-based CVRM increased with having a training practice status. Nurse involvement and practice size showed no statistical impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 20 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 19%
Psychology 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 31%
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 19 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,234,742
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,382
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,937
of 312,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 312,366 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.