| Title |
The Care Transitions Innovation (C-TraIn) for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults: Results of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-2903-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Honora Englander, Leann Michaels, Benjamin Chan, Devan Kansagara |
| Abstract |
Despite growing emphasis on transitional care to reduce costs and improve quality, few studies have examined transitional care improvements in socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. It is important to consider these patients separately as many are high-utilizers, have different needs, and may have different responses to interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 States | 5 | 42% |
| Canada | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 228 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 16% |
| Researcher | 35 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 18% |
| Unknown | 59 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Unknown | 72 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,155,800
of 25,349,102 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,090
of 8,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,455
of 236,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,349,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 236,042 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 73% of its contemporaries.