| Title |
Mechanisms, contexts and points of contention: operationalizing realist-informed research for complex health interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0641-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Shaw, Carolyn Steele Gray, G. Ross Baker, Jean-Louis Denis, Mylaine Breton, Jennifer Gutberg, Gaya Embuldeniya, Peter Carswell, Annette Dunham, Ann McKillop, Timothy Kenealy, Nicolette Sheridan, Walter Wodchis |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 16 | 47% |
| Members of the public | 14 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 151 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 17% |
| Researcher | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 30 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 49 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 01 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,417,467
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#155
of 2,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,978
of 449,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th 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 93% 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 449,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 87% of its contemporaries.