| Title |
Is a large scale community programme as effective as a community rehabilitation programme delivered in the setting of a clinical trial?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-103 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth C Goyder, Mark Strong, Angela Green, Michael W Holmes, Gail Miles, Orla Reddington, Rod Lawson, Andrew Lee, Gurnam Basran |
| Abstract |
The rationale for commissioning community pulmonary rehabilitation programmes is based on evidence from randomised clinical trials. However, there are a number of reasons why similar programmes might be less effective outside the environment of a clinical trial. These include a less highly selected patient group and less control over the fidelity of intervention delivery. The main objective of this study was therefore to test the hypothesis that the real-world programme would have similar outcomes to an intervention delivered in the context of a clinical trial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 30% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,907,567
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,029
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,356
of 197,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 197,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 50% of its contemporaries.