↓ Skip to main content

Using Principles of Co-Production to Improve Patient Care and Enhance Value

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Principles of Co-Production to Improve Patient Care and Enhance Value
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.pfor1-1711
Pubmed ID
Authors

Puja Turakhia, Brandon Combs

Abstract

Unlike goods, which are concrete and easily quantified, services are intangible processes that are produced and consumed concurrently. Health care is a service that can encourage optimal health outcomes only through meaningful, collaborative partnerships between patients and clinicians. Co-production of health services can be used as a means to rethink how health care is delivered not only in the context of face-to-face encounters in which the benefits of working together are obvious, but also in designing systems that can improve patient care and enhance value.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Psychology 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 03 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,358,116
of 26,742,580 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#407
of 2,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,271
of 345,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,742,580 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 345,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.