| Title |
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 – Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-019-0450-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin, Theresa A. Lawrie, María Barreix, Soo Downe, Kenneth W. Finlayson, Tigest Tamrat, Sarah Rosenbaum, Özge Tunçalp |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 4 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 50% |
| Scientists | 6 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,132,780
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#294
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,078
of 345,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 345,557 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.