↓ Skip to main content

Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation?

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation?
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-664
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Romero, David Vivas-Consuelo, Nelson Alvis-Guzman

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to do a discussion about the use of the HRQoL as a health measure of the populations that enable to analyze its potential use as a measure of development and efficiency of health systems. The principal use of the HRQoL is in health technologies economics evaluation; however this measure can be use in public health when need to know the health state of population. The WHO recognizes its potential use but its necessary to do a discussion about your difficulties for its application and restrictions for its use as a performance indicator for the health systems. The review show the different aspects about the use of HRQoL how a measure of efficiency ot the health system, each aspect identified in the literature is analyzed and discussed, developing the pros and cons of their possible use, especially when it comes as a cardinal measure. The analysis allows recognize that measuring HRQoL in countries could serve as a useful indicator, especially when it seeks to measure the level of health and disease, as do most of the indicators of current use. However, the methodological constraints that do not allow comparability between countries especially when you have large socioeconomic differences have yet to be resolved to allow comparison between different regions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Student > Postgraduate 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 16 9%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 17%
Psychology 11 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 33 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,309,411
of 12,440,396 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#432
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,529
of 227,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#15
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,396 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 227,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.