| Title |
Brief Training of Student Clinicians in Shared Decision Making: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-2765-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tammy C. Hoffmann, Sally Bennett, Clare Tomsett, Chris Del Mar |
| Abstract |
Shared decision making is a crucial component of evidence-based practice, but a lack of training in the "how to" of it is a major barrier to its uptake. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 16% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Denmark | 1 | 5% |
| Saint Lucia | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 47% |
| Scientists | 7 | 37% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 253 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 13% |
| Researcher | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 63 | 25% |
| Unknown | 54 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 88 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 16% |
| Psychology | 23 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 20 | 8% |
| Unknown | 69 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,722,853
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,016
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,519
of 314,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 314,317 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.