| Title |
Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Glyn Elwyn, Dominick Frosch, Richard Thomson, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Amy Lloyd, Paul Kinnersley, Emma Cording, Dave Tomson, Carole Dodd, Stephen Rollnick, Adrian Edwards, Michael Barry |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 154 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 States | 31 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 29 | 19% |
| Canada | 12 | 8% |
| Australia | 11 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 2 | 1% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 55 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 96 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 32 | 21% |
| Scientists | 19 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 5 | <1% |
| Spain | 5 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3145 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 500 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 373 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 317 | 10% |
| Researcher | 297 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 213 | 7% |
| Other | 639 | 20% |
| Unknown | 855 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 850 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 468 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 203 | 6% |
| Psychology | 194 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 51 | 2% |
| Other | 453 | 14% |
| Unknown | 975 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 320. 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 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#107,128
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#104
of 8,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#419
of 180,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 180,731 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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 94% of its contemporaries.