| Title |
Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0665-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather Ames, Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 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 | 21 | 28% |
| Ireland | 10 | 13% |
| South Africa | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 2 | 3% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 45 | 59% |
| Scientists | 22 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 167 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 95 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 52 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 48 | 4% |
| Other | 152 | 13% |
| Unknown | 536 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 95 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 94 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 63 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 45 | 4% |
| Other | 232 | 20% |
| Unknown | 556 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#840,365
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#72
of 2,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,677
of 449,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 449,379 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.