| Title |
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 2002
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P J Devereaux, Peter T L Choi, Christina Lacchetti, Bruce Weaver, Holger J Schünemann, Ted Haines, John N Lavis, Brydon J B Grant, David R S Haslam, Mohit Bhandari, Terrence Sullivan, Deborah J Cook, Stephen D Walter, Maureen Meade, Humaira Khan, Neera Bhatnagar, Gordon H Guyatt |
| Abstract |
Canadians are engaged in an intense debate about the relative merits of private for-profit versus private not-for-profit health care delivery. To inform this debate, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the mortality rates of private for-profit hospitals and those of private not-for-profit hospitals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 503 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 | 121 | 24% |
| Spain | 82 | 16% |
| Chile | 12 | 2% |
| United States | 10 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Colombia | 3 | <1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 22 | 4% |
| Unknown | 244 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 440 | 87% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 28 | 6% |
| Scientists | 26 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 3% |
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Tunisia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 173 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 21% |
| Researcher | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 49 | 26% |
| Unknown | 22 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 517. 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 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#49,888
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#90
of 9,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21
of 127,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 127,233 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 39 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 97% of its contemporaries.