| Title |
A WHO-HPH operational program versus usual routines for implementing clinical health promotion: an RCT in health promoting hospitals (HPH)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-018-0848-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeff Kirk Svane, Shu-Ti Chiou, Oliver Groene, Milena Kalvachova, Mirna Zagrajski Brkić, Isao Fukuba, Tiiu Härm, Jerneja Farkas, Yen Ang, Mikkel Østerheden Andersen, Hanne Tønnesen |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 2 | 13% |
| Australia | 2 | 13% |
| Thailand | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Israel | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 44% |
| Scientists | 6 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 132 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 52 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 58 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,379,006
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#709
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,013
of 438,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 438,988 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.