| Title |
A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma F. France, Isabelle Uny, Nicola Ring, Ruth L. Turley, Margaret Maxwell, Edward A. S. Duncan, Ruth G. Jepson, Rachel J. Roberts, Jane Noyes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 | 14 | 32% |
| Ireland | 6 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| South Africa | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Guinea | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 45% |
| Scientists | 19 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 210 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 20% |
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 31 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Psychology | 17 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 15% |
| Unknown | 65 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 04 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,193,780
of 24,597,084 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#129
of 2,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,248
of 357,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,597,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. 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 357,735 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 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.