↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

China Tuberculosis Policy at Crucial Crossroads: Comparing the Practice of Different Hospital and Tuberculosis Control Collaboration Models Using Survey Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
China Tuberculosis Policy at Crucial Crossroads: Comparing the Practice of Different Hospital and Tuberculosis Control Collaboration Models Using Survey Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0090596
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolin Wei, Guanyang Zou, John Walley, Jia Yin, Knut Lonnroth, Mukund Uplekar, Weibing Wang, Qiang Sun

Abstract

Currently three hospital and tuberculosis (TB) collaboration models exist in China: the dispensary model where TB has to be diagnosed and treated in TB dispensaries, the specialist model where TB specialist hospital also treat TB patients, and the integrated model where TB diagnosis and treatment is integrated into a general hospital. The study compared effects of the three models through exploring patient experience in TB diagnosis and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 30 37%