↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Investigating the health care delivery system in Japan and reviewing the local public hospital reform

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Investigating the health care delivery system in Japan and reviewing the local public hospital reform
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s93285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xing Zhang, Tatsuo Oyama

Abstract

Japan's health care system is considered one of the best health care systems in the world. Hospitals are one of the most important health care resources in Japan. As such, we investigate Japanese hospitals from various viewpoints, including their roles, ownership, regional distribution, and characteristics with respect to the number of beds, staff, doctors, and financial performance. Applying a multivariate analysis and regression model techniques, we show the functional differences between urban populated prefectures and remote ones; the equality gap among all prefectures with respect to the distribution of the number of beds, staff, and doctors; and managerial differences between private and public hospitals. We also review and evaluate the local public hospital reform executed in 2007 from various financial aspects related to the expenditure and revenue structure by comparing public and private hospitals. We show that the 2007 reform contributed to improving the financial situation of local public hospitals. Strategic differences between public and private hospitals with respect to their management and strategy to improve their financial situation are also quantitatively analyzed in detail. Finally, the remaining problems and the future strategy to further improve the Japanese health care system are described.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 21%
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,613,926
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#141
of 725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,880
of 305,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 305,106 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.