Title |
Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-162 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Erin Mathieu, Alexandra Barratt, Stacy M Carter, Gro Jamtvedt |
Abstract |
Use of the Internet to conduct randomised controlled trials is increasing, and provides potential to increase equity of access to medical research, increase the generalisability of trial results and decrease the costs involved in conducting large scale trials. Several studies have compared response rates, completeness of data, and reliability of surveys using the Internet and traditional methods, but very little is known about participants' attitudes towards Internet-based randomised trials or their experience of participating in an Internet-based trial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
Australia | 1 | 8% |
Belgium | 1 | 8% |
United States | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 1% |
Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 20 | 22% |
Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
Other | 9 | 10% |
Unknown | 22 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 25% |
Psychology | 13 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Other | 12 | 13% |
Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#4,763,151
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#755
of 2,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,055
of 202,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 202,460 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.