↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Impact of noncommunicable diseases in the State of Qatar

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Impact of noncommunicable diseases in the State of Qatar
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s74682
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salma Khalaf Al-Kaabi, Andrew Atherton

Abstract

This study, commissioned by the Supreme Council of Health in the State of Qatar, focuses on the main noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) globally and regionally, in order to gauge their potential impact on Qatar. The research shows that the Gulf Cooperation Council is projected to be affected dramatically by NCDs in the coming years. The top five NCDs that will affect Qatar in terms of economic burden and disability-adjusted life years are cardiovascular diseases, mental health and behavioral disorders, cancer, respiratory diseases, and diabetes. Whilst these diseases have diverse effects on patients, their causes can be traced to "… common lifestyle-related, or behavioral, risk factors such as tobacco use, a diet heavy in fat, and physical inactivity". The total direct and indirect costs to the Gulf Cooperation Council calculated for the above five NCDs were $36.2 billion in 2013, which equates to 150% of the officially recorded annual health care expenditure. If this trajectory is maintained, spending per head of population in Qatar will reach $2,778 by 2022. These figures demonstrate not only the potential financial impact of the main NCDs, but also give an idea of how the current health system is working to address them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 26 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 30 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,170,265
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#392
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,080
of 278,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 278,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.