| Title |
Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1503/cmaj.1040722 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P J Devereaux, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Christina Lacchetti, Ted Haines, Karen E A Burns, Deborah J Cook, Nikila Ravindran, S D Walter, Heather McDonald, Samuel B Stone, Rakesh Patel, Mohit Bhandari, Holger J Schünemann, Peter T-L Choi, Ahmed M Bayoumi, John N Lavis, Terrence Sullivan, Greg Stoddart, Gordon H Guyatt |
| Abstract |
It has been shown that patients cared for at private for-profit hospitals have higher risk-adjusted mortality rates than those cared for at private not-for-profit hospitals. Uncertainty remains, however, about the economic implications of these forms of health care delivery. Since some policy-makers might still consider for-profit health care if expenditure savings were sufficiently large, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 35 | 44% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 36 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 68 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 10% |
| Scientists | 4 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 19% |
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 23 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 145. 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 19 January 2024.
All research outputs
#292,124
of 25,830,005 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#521
of 9,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271
of 62,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,830,005 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 62,985 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.