| Title |
How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0096-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bridget Gaglio, Siobhan M Phillips, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Michael A Sanchez, Russell E Glasgow |
| Abstract |
The need for high-quality evidence that is applicable in real-world, routine settings continues to increase. Pragmatic trials are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, whereas explanatory trials aim to test whether an intervention works under optimal situations. There is a continuum between explanatory and pragmatic trials. Most trials have aspects of both, making it challenging to label and categorize a trial and to evaluate its potential for translation into practice. |
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 Kingdom | 4 | 33% |
| Canada | 3 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 27% |
| Psychology | 16 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 27% |
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 03 September 2014.
All research outputs
#4,418,721
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#852
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,382
of 236,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#20
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 236,628 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 58 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 65% of its contemporaries.