| Title |
Explaining clinical behaviors using multiple theoretical models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-99 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin P Eccles, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Graeme MacLennan, Debbie Bonetti, Liz Glidewell, Nigel B Pitts, Nick Steen, Ruth Thomas, Anne Walker, Marie Johnston |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 41% |
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 255 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 17% |
| Researcher | 43 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 15% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 65 | 24% |
| Unknown | 42 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 26% |
| Psychology | 50 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 11% |
| Unknown | 54 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,895,110
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#588
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,679
of 197,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#4
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 197,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.