Title |
A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-66 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Heather L Colquhoun, Jamie C Brehaut, Anne Sales, Noah Ivers, Jeremy Grimshaw, Susan Michie, Kelly Carroll, Mathieu Chalifoux, Kevin W Eva |
Abstract |
Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 4 | 21% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 21% |
Australia | 3 | 16% |
Ireland | 1 | 5% |
Germany | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 47% |
Scientists | 6 | 32% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 16% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
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 | 4 | 1% |
Canada | 3 | 1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Kenya | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 258 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 51 | 19% |
Researcher | 43 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 15% |
Other | 18 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 6% |
Other | 57 | 21% |
Unknown | 44 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 23% |
Psychology | 33 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 29 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
Other | 47 | 17% |
Unknown | 64 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,549,192
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#714
of 1,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,193
of 203,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,793 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 203,627 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 72% of its contemporaries.