| Title |
Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish Patient Compensation Association database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s84162 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jens Tilma, Mette Nørgaard, Kim Lyngby Mikkelsen, Søren Paaske Johnsen |
| Abstract |
Any patient in the Danish health care system who experiences a treatment injury can make a compensation claim to the Danish Patient Compensation Association (DPCA) free of charge. The aim of this paper is to describe the DPCA database as a source of data for epidemiological research. Data to DPCA are collected prospectively on all claims and include information on patient factors and health records, system factors, and administrative data. Approval of claims is based on injury due to the principle of treatment below experienced specialist standard or intolerable, unexpected extensiveness of injury. Average processing time of a compensation claim is 6-8 months. Data collection is nationwide and started in 1992. The patient's central registration system number, a unique personal identifier, allows for data linkage to other registries such as the Danish National Patient Registry. The DPCA data are accessible for research following data usage permission and make it possible to analyze all claims or specific subgroups to identify predictors, outcomes, etc. DPCA data have until now been used only in few studies but could be a useful data source in future studies of health care-related injuries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#530
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,253
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 3 of them.