| Title |
Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tracy L. Finch, Melissa Girling, Carl R. May, Frances S. Mair, Elizabeth Murray, Shaun Treweek, Elaine McColl, Ian Nicholas Steen, Clare Cook, Christopher R. Vernazza, Nicola Mackintosh, Samridh Sharma, Gaery Barbery, Jimmy Steele, Tim Rapley |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 7 | 30% |
| Denmark | 2 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 52% |
| Members of the public | 9 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 166 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 17% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 17% |
| Unknown | 50 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 16% |
| Psychology | 18 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 66 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,791,852
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#227
of 2,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,252
of 357,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 357,972 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.