↓ Skip to main content

How is intensive care reimbursed? A review of eight European countries

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
How is intensive care reimbursed? A review of eight European countries
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin-Immanuel Bittner, Maria Donnelly, Arthur RH van Zanten, Jakob Steen Andersen, Bertrand Guidet, Jose Javier Trujillano Cabello, Shane Gardiner, Gerard Fitzpatrick, Bob Winter, Michael Joannidis, Axel Schmutz

Abstract

Reimbursement schemes in intensive care are more complex than in other areas of healthcare, due to special procedures and high care needs. Knowledge regarding the principles of functioning in other countries can lead to increased understanding and awareness of potential for improvement. This can be achieved through mutual exchange of solutions found in other countries. In this review, experts from eight European countries explain their respective intensive care unit reimbursement schemes. Important conclusions include the apparent differences in the countries' reimbursement schemes-despite all of them originating from a DRG system-, the high degree of complexity found, and the difficulties faced in several countries when collecting the data for this collaborative work. This review has been designed to assist the intensivist clinician and researcher in understanding neighbouring countries' approaches and in putting research into the context of a European perspective. In addition, steering committees and decision makers might find this a valuable source to compare different reimbursement schemes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Other 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 13 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 February 2022.
All research outputs
#3,027,495
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#407
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,696
of 225,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 225,327 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.