↓ Skip to main content

Comparing efficiency of health systems across industrialized countries: a panel analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
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 (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Comparing efficiency of health systems across industrialized countries: a panel analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1084-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bianca K. Frogner, H.E. Frech, Stephen T. Parente

Abstract

Rankings from the World Health Organization (WHO) place the US health care system as one of the least efficient among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Researchers have questioned this, noting simplistic or inappropriate methodologies, poor measurement choice, and poor control variables. Our objective is to re-visit this question by using newer modeling techniques and a large panel of OECD data. We primarily use the OECD Health Data for 25 OECD countries. We compare results from stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) and fixed effects models. We estimate total life expectancy as well as life expectancy at age 60. We explore a combination of control variables reflecting health care resources, health behaviors, and economic and environmental factors. The US never ranks higher than fifth out of all 36 models, but is also never the very last ranked country though it was close in several models. The SFA estimation approach produces the most consistent lead country, but the remaining countries did not maintain a steady rank. Our study sheds light on the fragility of health system rankings by using a large panel and applying the latest efficiency modeling techniques. The rankings are not robust to different statistical approaches, nor to variable inclusion decisions. Future international comparisons should employ a range of methodologies to generate a more nuanced portrait of health care system efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 22 26%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 20 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,702,100
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,196
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,922
of 276,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#30
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 276,464 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 144 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.