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.
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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is Health Practitioner Regulation Keeping Pace with the Changing Practitioner and Health-Care Landscape? An Australian Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00091 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Lee Wardle, David Sibbritt, Alex Broom, Amie Steel, Jon Adams |
| Abstract |
Health-care delivery is undergoing significant evolution and change. Task substitution has resulted in some practitioner groups expanding their scope of practice by assuming more complex clinical roles, new practitioner groups have emerged, and consumer-driven demand has changed the way the public engage with health practitioners and the way many health-care services are delivered. Using Australia as a case study, this paper explores the issue of the hesitancy to include new professions in health professions regulation schemes. Despite the significant changes in the health-care delivery landscape, policy development in this area has remained relatively static, with active resistance to extending formal registration to new practitioner groups. Ignoring the issue of new practitioner groups in regulatory schemes is unacceptable from a public health perspective and runs against the key public protection objectives of health practitioner regulation. Development of pathways for the entry of new health practitioner groups into regulatory schemes must be developed as a matter of priority. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Psychology | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 27% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 27 March 2023.
All research outputs
#672,952
of 23,485,204 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#285
of 11,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,289
of 354,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#9
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 354,903 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.