| Title |
The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009853.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Brocklehurst, Juliet Price, Anne-Marie Glenny, Martin Tickle, Stephen Birch, Elizabeth Mertz, Jostein Grytten |
| Abstract |
Methods of remuneration have been linked with the professional behaviour of primary care physicians. In dentistry, this can be exacerbated as clinicians operate their practices as businesses and take the full financial risk of the provision of services. The main methods for remunerating primary care dentists include fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. The aim of this review was to determine the impact that these remuneration mechanisms have upon primary care dentists' behaviour. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 407 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 397 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 75 | 18% |
| Researcher | 42 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 90 | 22% |
| Unknown | 103 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 147 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 20 | 5% |
| Psychology | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 50 | 12% |
| Unknown | 117 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,452,618
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,097
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,423
of 215,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 215,644 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.