| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Spain | 2 | 22% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 30% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#6,298,484
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#410
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,578
of 121,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 121,552 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.