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 |
General practitioners' views on perceived and actual gains, benefits and barriers associated with the implementation of an Australian health assessment for people with intellectual disability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01586.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N. G. Lennox, C. E. Brolan, J. Dean, R. S. Ware, F. M. Boyle, M. Taylor Gomez, K. van Dooren, C. Bain |
| Abstract |
Health assessments for people with intellectual disability have been implemented in the UK, New Zealand and Australia, and have led to improved health outcomes. The Comprehensive Health Assessment Program (CHAP) has been shown to improve the health of people with intellectual disability. Similar to other health assessments, it is designed to address healthcare needs, many of which are often overlooked in this population, through better communication between the general practitioner (GP), support worker and the person with intellectual disability. This study investigates GP views of the perceived and actual benefits, gains and barriers associated with its uptake and use in practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 22% |
| Psychology | 20 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,505,896
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#1,049
of 1,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,051
of 167,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 167,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.