| Title |
Design, implementation, and evaluation of a knowledge translation intervention to increase organ donation after cardiocirculatory death in Canada: a study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-80 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet E Squires, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Monica Taljaard, Stefanie Linklater, Michaël Chassé, Sam D Shemie, Gregory A Knoll |
| Abstract |
A shortage of transplantable organs is a global problem. There are two types of organ donation: living and deceased. Deceased organ donation can occur following neurological determination of death (NDD) or cardiocirculatory death. Donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) accounts for the largest increments in deceased organ donation worldwide. Variations in the use of DCD exist, however, within Canada and worldwide. Reasons for these discrepancies are largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to develop, implement, and evaluate a theory-based knowledge translation intervention to provide practical guidance about how to increase the numbers of DCD organ donors without reducing the numbers of standard NDD donors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 24% |
| Researcher | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 10 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 July 2014.
All research outputs
#8,239,130
of 24,682,395 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,300
of 1,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,571
of 233,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#25
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,682,395 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 233,406 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.