| Title |
Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Involvement and Engagement, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40900-018-0136-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Calum F. Leask, Marlene Sandlund, Dawn A. Skelton, Teatske M. Altenburg, Greet Cardon, Mai J. M. Chinapaw, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Maite Verloigne, Sebastien F. M. Chastin |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 | 24 | 27% |
| Australia | 7 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 4% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 41 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 53% |
| Scientists | 27 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 413 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 413 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 64 | 15% |
| Researcher | 56 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 54 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 57 | 14% |
| Unknown | 140 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 42 | 10% |
| Psychology | 25 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 15% |
| Unknown | 175 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 26 April 2023.
All research outputs
#664,062
of 25,480,126 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#27
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,284
of 447,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,480,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 447,297 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.