↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Patient experience – the ingredient missing from cost-effectiveness calculations

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, May 2011
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Patient experience – the ingredient missing from cost-effectiveness calculations
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, May 2011
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s20243
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Curtis

Abstract

Standard cost-effectiveness calculations as used by the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence compare the net benefit of an intervention with the financial costs to the health service. Debates about public health interventions also focus on these factors. The subjective experience of the patient, including financial costs and also transient pain, distress, and indignity, is routinely ignored. I carried out an Internet survey which showed that members of the public assign a high financial cost to routine medical interventions such as taking a tablet regularly or attending a clinic for an injection. It is wrong to ignore such costs when attempting to obtain an overall evaluation of the benefit of medical interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 40%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Unspecified 2 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,913,176
of 13,536,864 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#113
of 1,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,707
of 147,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,536,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 147,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.