Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Caddick, Barbara

  • Google
  • 1
  • 10
  • 19

University of Bristol

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2020Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations19citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Fuller, Alice
1 / 1 shared
Bankhead, Clare R.
1 / 1 shared
Lay-Flurrie, Sarah
1 / 1 shared
Nicholson, Brian D.
1 / 1 shared
Murphy, Mairead
1 / 1 shared
Holt, Tim A.
1 / 1 shared
Ordóñez-Mena, José M.
1 / 1 shared
Salisbury, Chris
1 / 3 shared
Perera, Rafael
1 / 3 shared
Hobbs, F. D. Richard
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2020

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Fuller, Alice
  • Bankhead, Clare R.
  • Lay-Flurrie, Sarah
  • Nicholson, Brian D.
  • Murphy, Mairead
  • Holt, Tim A.
  • Ordóñez-Mena, José M.
  • Salisbury, Chris
  • Perera, Rafael
  • Hobbs, F. D. Richard
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations

  • Fuller, Alice
  • Bankhead, Clare R.
  • Lay-Flurrie, Sarah
  • Nicholson, Brian D.
  • Murphy, Mairead
  • Holt, Tim A.
  • Ordóñez-Mena, José M.
  • Salisbury, Chris
  • Perera, Rafael
  • Caddick, Barbara
  • Hobbs, F. D. Richard
Abstract

Background: The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and vary in different settings. Testing these hypotheses requires a measure of complexity.<br/><br/>Aim: To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records. <br/><br/>Design: Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by cross-sectional study to develop and validate a complexity measure. <br/><br/>Setting: English general practices. <br/><br/>Method: An online Delphi study over two rounds involved 32 general practitioners to identify potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of 173,130 patients and 725,616 general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/14 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/18. We assessed the proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups.<br/><br/>Results: After two rounds, the Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators. In the cross-sectional study, after excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained. Defining complexity as the presence of any of these factors, 308,370 consultations (42.5%) were complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in men and women but increased with age.<br/> <br/>Conclusion: Our consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.

Topics
  • random