You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How diabetes risk assessment tools are implemented in practice: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.01.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teerapon Dhippayom, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Ines Krass |
| Abstract |
This review aimed to explore the extent of the use of diabetes risk assessment tools and to determine influential variables associated with the implementation of these tools. CINAHL, Google Scholar, ISI Citation Indexes, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from inception to January 2013. Studies that reported the use of diabetes risk assessment tools to identify individuals at risk of diabetes were included. Of the 1719 articles identified, 24 were included. Follow-up of high risk individuals for diagnosis of diabetes was conducted in 5 studies. Barriers to the uptake of diabetes risk assessment tools by healthcare practitioners included (1) attitudes toward the tools; (2) impracticality of using the tools and (3) lack of reimbursement and regulatory support. Individuals were reluctant to undertake self-assessment of diabetes risk due to (1) lack of perceived severity of type 2 diabetes; (2) impracticality of the tools; and (3) concerns related to finding out the results. The current use of non-invasive diabetes risk assessment scores as screening tools appears to be limited. Practical follow up systems as well as strategies to address other barriers to the implementation of diabetes risk assessment tools are essential and need to be developed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 September 2017.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice
#2,919
of 3,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,843
of 336,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice
#57
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 336,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.