| Title |
Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1161-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon D. Scott, Thomas Rotter, Rachel Flynn, Hannah M. Brooks, Tabatha Plesuk, Katherine H. Bannar-Martin, Thane Chambers, Lisa Hartling |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 19 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8% |
| Senegal | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 56% |
| Scientists | 14 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 41 | 43% |
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 01 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,255,139
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#171
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,523
of 383,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 2,249 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 383,013 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 74 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 90% of its contemporaries.