| Title |
Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1111-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Burton, Lynne Williams, Tracey Bucknall, Stephen Edwards, Denise Fisher, Beth Hall, Gill Harris, Peter Jones, Matthew Makin, Anne McBride, Rachel Meacock, John Parkinson, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Justin Waring |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 | 16 | 42% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 55% |
| Scientists | 14 | 37% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 20 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,655,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#258
of 2,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,275
of 358,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 358,162 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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.