| Title |
Evaluation of an interactive program for preventing adverse drug events in primary care: study protocol of the InPAct cluster randomised stepped wedge trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-69 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maud Keriel-Gascou, Karine Buchet-Poyau, Antoine Duclos, Muriel Rabilloud, Sophie Figon, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Jean Brami, Thierry Vial, Cyrille Colin |
| Abstract |
Adverse drug events could often be prevented. One of their main causes is that patients rarely know how to detect them. Another cause is inadequate communication between patients and physicians. If patients were to be effectively trained in detecting and reporting adverse drug events, this should help to prevent their occurrence and subsequent complications. Our purpose is to present the protocol of the InPAct trial, which aims to evaluate an interactive program that encourages patients to report adverse drug events in primary care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 August 2013.
All research outputs
#14,754,618
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,534
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,420
of 196,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 196,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.