Example of BMC Health Services Research format
Recent searches

Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format Example of BMC Health Services Research format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access

BMC Health Services Research — Template for authors

Publisher: Springer
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Health Policy #66 of 242 down down by 12 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
Good
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 3960 Published Papers | 13847 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 13/07/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.2
SJR: 1.216
SNIP: 3.119
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

SAGE

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.3
SJR: 0.603
SNIP: 1.079
open access Open Access

Dove Medical Press

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 2.7
SJR: 0.591
SNIP: 0.83
open access Open Access

Dove Medical Press

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.8
SJR: 0.885
SNIP: 1.285

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

1.987

3% from 2018

Impact factor for BMC Health Services Research from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 1.987
2018 1.932
2017 1.843
2016 1.827
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

3.5

17% from 2019

CiteRatio for BMC Health Services Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 3.5
2019 3.0
2018 2.8
2017 3.2
2016 3.2
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has increased by 3% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 17% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

1.098

10% from 2019

SJR for BMC Health Services Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.098
2019 0.995
2018 1.057
2017 1.151
2016 1.095
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

1.445

17% from 2019

SNIP for BMC Health Services Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.445
2019 1.23
2018 1.192
2017 1.261
2016 1.196
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has increased by 10% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 17% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

BMC Health Services Research

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Springer

BMC Health Services Research

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for BMC Health Services Research formatting guidelines as mentioned in Springer author instructions. The current version was created on and has been used by 476 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

i
Last updated on
12 Jul 2020
i
ISSN
1606-8610
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
White faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder, G.E., Tinkham, M., Klapwijk, T.M.: Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B 25(7), 4515–4532 (1982)

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-44
The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research

Abstract:

There is widespread interest in measuring healthcare provider attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety (often called safety climate or safety culture). Here we report the psychometric properties, establish benchmarking data, and discuss emerging areas of research with the University of Texas Safety Attitudes Question... There is widespread interest in measuring healthcare provider attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety (often called safety climate or safety culture). Here we report the psychometric properties, establish benchmarking data, and discuss emerging areas of research with the University of Texas Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Six cross-sectional surveys of health care providers (n = 10,843) in 203 clinical areas (including critical care units, operating rooms, inpatient settings, and ambulatory clinics) in three countries (USA, UK, New Zealand). Multilevel factor analyses yielded results at the clinical area level and the respondent nested within clinical area level. We report scale reliability, floor/ceiling effects, item factor loadings, inter-factor correlations, and percentage of respondents who agree with each item and scale. A six factor model of provider attitudes fit to the data at both the clinical area and respondent nested within clinical area levels. The factors were: Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, Perceptions of Management, Job Satisfaction, Working Conditions, and Stress Recognition. Scale reliability was 0.9. Provider attitudes varied greatly both within and among organizations. Results are presented to allow benchmarking among organizations and emerging research is discussed. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties. Healthcare organizations can use the survey to measure caregiver attitudes about six patient safety-related domains, to compare themselves with other organizations, to prompt interventions to improve safety attitudes and to measure the effectiveness of these interventions. read more read less

Topics:

Patient safety (56%)56% related to the paper, Safety culture (54%)54% related to the paper, Benchmarking (51%)51% related to the paper, Respondent (51%)51% related to the paper, Health services research (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
1,531 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S12913-017-2031-8
Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework
Mandeep Sekhon1, Martin Cartwright1, Jill J Francis1

Abstract:

It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of ... It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients. Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews). From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions. read more read less

Topics:

Systematic review (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
1,435 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Abstract:

A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key qu... A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed. read more read less

Topics:

Patient participation (53%)53% related to the paper, CINAHL (51%)51% related to the paper, Nursing research (50%)50% related to the paper, Research design (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
1,049 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S12913-014-0579-0
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews
Abigail Methley1, Stephen Campbell1, Carolyn Chew-Graham2, Rosalind McNally3, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi1

Abstract:

Qualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative resear... Qualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team. In this article we tested the ‘SPIDER’ search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS). Results showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches. The recommendations for practice are therefore to use the PICO tool for a fully comprehensive search but the PICOS tool where time and resources are limited. Based on these limited findings the SPIDER tool would not be recommended due to the risk of not identifying relevant papers, but has potential due to its greater specificity. read more read less
View PDF
1,011 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group.

Abstract:

A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help peopl... A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings. read more read less

Topics:

Evidence-based medicine (55%)55% related to the paper, Critical appraisal (54%)54% related to the paper, Grading (education) (53%)53% related to the paper
View PDF
975 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for BMC Health Services Research.

It automatically formats your research paper to Springer formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write BMC Health Services Research in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the BMC Health Services Research guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the BMC Health Services Research guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the BMC Health Services Research guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in BMC Health Services Research?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the BMC Health Services Research citation style.

4. Can I use the BMC Health Services Research templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for BMC Health Services Research.

5. Can I use a manuscript in BMC Health Services Research that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper BMC Health Services Research that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in BMC Health Services Research?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in BMC Health Services Research.

7. Where can I find the template for the BMC Health Services Research?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per BMC Health Services Research's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the BMC Health Services Research's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. BMC Health Services Research an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's BMC Health Services Research is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like BMC Health Services Research?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like BMC Health Services Research?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using BMC Health Services Research?

After writing your paper autoformatting in BMC Health Services Research, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is BMC Health Services Research's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for BMC Health Services Research?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for BMC Health Services Research. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In BMC Health Services Research?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for BMC Health Services Research are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the BMC Health Services Research?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per BMC Health Services Research's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download BMC Health Services Research in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in BMC Health Services Research Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to BMC Health Services Research formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template