| Title |
A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-35 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Signe A Flottorp, Andrew D Oxman, Jane Krause, Nyokabi R Musila, Michel Wensing, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Richard Baker, Martin P Eccles |
| Abstract |
Determinants of practice are factors that might prevent or enable improvements. Several checklists, frameworks, taxonomies, and classifications of determinants of healthcare professional practice have been published. In this paper, we describe the development of a comprehensive, integrated checklist of determinants of practice (the TICD checklist). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 13 | 37% |
| United States | 5 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 43% |
| Scientists | 11 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 917 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| United States | 5 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 897 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 162 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 145 | 16% |
| Researcher | 139 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 60 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 6% |
| Other | 167 | 18% |
| Unknown | 190 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 239 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 120 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 90 | 10% |
| Psychology | 70 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 29 | 3% |
| Other | 124 | 14% |
| Unknown | 245 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,126,886
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#182
of 1,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,207
of 210,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 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 1,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 210,429 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.