| Title |
Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia Rutherford, Jane Nixon, Julia M Brown, Donna L Lamping, Stefan J Cano |
| Abstract |
When developing new measuring instruments or deciding upon one for research, consideration of the 'best' method of administration for the target population should be made. Current evidence is inconsistent in differentiating superiority of any one method in terms of quantity and quality of response. We trialed a novel mixed methods approach in early scale development to determine the best administration method for a new patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers (the PU-QOL). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
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 24 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,190,698
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,376
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,715
of 313,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 313,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.