| Title |
Slaying the dragon myth: an ethnographic study of receptionists in UK general practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp13x664225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Hammond, Katja Gravenhorst, Emma Funnell, Susan Beatty, Derek Hibbert, Jonathan Lamb, Heather Burroughs, Marija Kovandžić, Mark Gabbay, Christopher Dowrick, Linda Gask, Waquas Waheed, Carolyn A Chew-Graham |
| Abstract |
General practice receptionists fulfil an essential role in UK primary care, shaping patient access to health professionals. They are often portrayed as powerful 'gatekeepers'. Existing literature and management initiatives advocate more training to improve their performance and, consequently, the patient experience. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 | 31 | 60% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 31% |
| Scientists | 7 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Psychology | 9 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
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 14 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,307,634
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#603
of 4,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,508
of 207,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#4
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. 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 207,103 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 92% of its contemporaries.