↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Performance Scores in General Practice: A Comparison between the Clinical versus Medication-Based Approach to Identify Target Populations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Performance Scores in General Practice: A Comparison between the Clinical versus Medication-Based Approach to Identify Target Populations
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Saint-Lary, Philippe Boisnault, Michel Naiditch, Philippe Szidon, Didier Duhot, Yann Bourgueil, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury

Abstract

From one country to another, the pay-for-performance mechanisms differ on one significant point: the identification of target populations, that is, populations which serve as a basis for calculating the indicators. The aim of this study was to compare clinical versus medication-based identification of populations of patients with diabetes and hypertension over the age of 50 (for men) or 60 (for women), and any consequences this may have on the calculation of P4P indicators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 30%