Title |
A Comparison of Web-Based Versus Print-Based Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Screening: Participants’ Evaluation and Utilization
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-2994-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Catherine Tomko, Kimberly M. Davis, George Luta, Alexander H. Krist, Steven H. Woolf, Kathryn L. Taylor |
Abstract |
Patient decision aids facilitate informed decision making for medical tests and procedures that have uncertain benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 113 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 21 | 18% |
Researcher | 14 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 16% |
Unknown | 29 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 16% |
Social Sciences | 12 | 10% |
Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
Psychology | 5 | 4% |
Other | 19 | 17% |
Unknown | 36 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,943,641
of 25,011,008 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,126
of 8,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,472
of 243,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#29
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,011,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 243,880 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 68% of its contemporaries.