You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of health screening for adults with intellectual disability: a pooled analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp11x561186 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Lennox, Robert Ware, Chris Bain, Miriam Taylor Gomez, Sally-Ann Cooper |
| Abstract |
Health screening has been shown to have beneficial effects on health outcomes in adults with intellectual disability. However, the nature of the population, which makes it difficult to recruit, has meant past studies have been relatively small and effect estimates unstable. This study conducted a pooled analysis of two randomised trials and one cohort study, containing a total of 795 participants. Use of a simple, low-cost screening tool produced substantial increases in health-promotion and disease-prevention activity, when compared with usual care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,905,726
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,930
of 4,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,090
of 120,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#12
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 120,733 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 63% of its contemporaries.