| Title |
Understanding the benefits and limitations of continuous, risk-based, consultation peer-review in out-of-hours general practice: A qualitative interview study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0076 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Bennett-Britton, Jonathan Banks, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Chris Salisbury |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 22 | 76% |
| Egypt | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 59% |
| Scientists | 8 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Researcher | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 58% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 68% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 22 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,181,969
of 24,088,270 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#569
of 4,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,601
of 430,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#27
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,088,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 430,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.