| Title |
Study protocol: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge trial of tailored support for implementing social determinants of health documentation/action in community health centers, with realist evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-019-0855-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Gold, Arwen Bunce, Erika Cottrell, Miguel Marino, Mary Middendorf, Stuart Cowburn, Dagan Wright, Ned Mossman, Katie Dambrun, Byron J. Powell, Inga Gruß, Laura Gottlieb, Marla Dearing, Jason Scott, Nadia Yosuf, Molly Krancari |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 9 | 38% |
| Ireland | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Unknown | 50 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 51 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,865,510
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#582
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,949
of 449,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 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 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 449,403 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 57% of its contemporaries.