↓ Skip to main content

Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Comparing medicine and management: methodological issues
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1390-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Burau

Abstract

In the study of medicine and management, there is a strong interest in cross-country comparison. Across healthcare systems in industrialised countries, New Public Management has provided a similar reform template, but new governing arrangements exhibit significant national variations. The comparative perspective also offers a leverage to overcome the resistance focus of earlier studies. Comparison raises two overall questions: in what similar and different ways are relations between medicine and management changing across industrialised countries? Why is change occurring in different ways? The questions reflect exploration and explanation as the two basic rationales for comparison. The aim was to provide a critical discussion of different approaches to comparing medicine and management across countries. The analysis was based on a narrative review of relevant studies from several bodies of literature. The majority of studies exploring medicine and management adopt macro level approaches to comparison. Studies draw on a range of notions, including area specific ideal types of professionalism, professionalism as countervailing powers and governmentality. There are much fewer studies exploring relations between medicine and management at the meso level. Analyses treat comparison as a two-dimensional exercise looking across both countries and levels. The majority of studies draws on institutional explanations. These are variations of the path dependency argument and studies include both sector specific and broader political and administrative institutions. There is an emerging body of process-based explanations which connect macro level institutions to organisations and which promote more non-linear comparisons. The lack of meso level comparisons drawing on process explanations is problematic. Empirically, we need to know more about how relations between medicine and management are different across countries. Theoretically, we need to better understand how we can transpose analytical insights from institutional explanations at macro level to studies that are multi-level and also include the meso level of organisations. Methodologically, we need to address the challenges arising from more non-linear approaches to comparison, especially how to organise close international research collaboration over an extended period of time.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 37%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 3 16%

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 26 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,766,446
of 7,811,999 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,753
of 2,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,060
of 268,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#74
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,811,999 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 268,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.