↓ Skip to main content

Motives and preferences of general practitioners for new collaboration models with medical specialists: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Motives and preferences of general practitioners for new collaboration models with medical specialists: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2007
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-7-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette J Berendsen, Wim HGM Benneker, Betty Meyboom-de Jong, Niek S Klazinga, Jan Schuling

Abstract

Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates GPs to initiate and continue participating with medical specialists in new collaborative care models. The following two questions are addressed in this study: What motivates GPs to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with medical specialists? What kind of new collaboration models do GPs suggest?

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 3%
Switzerland 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 68 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 10 14%
Librarian 6 8%
Unspecified 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 58%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Unspecified 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 January 2007.
All research outputs
#2,784,446
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,181
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,700,413
of 11,793,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1,181
of 4,083 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 11,793,424 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,083 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 71% of its contemporaries.