| Title |
Lay perceptions of evidence-based information – a qualitative evaluation of a website for back pain sufferers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, December 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-6-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Glenton, Elin S Nilsen, Benedicte Carlsen |
| Abstract |
In an evidence-informed patient choice the patient has access to research-based information about the effectiveness of health care options and is encouraged to use this information in treatment decisions. This concept has seen growing popularity in recent years. However, we still know relatively little about users' attitudes to the use of research-based information, possibly because people have been unexposed to this type of information. After developing the BackInfo website where the results of Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of low back pain were adapted and presented to lay users we evaluated how users responded to this information. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Comoros | 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 23% |
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,247,248
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,521
of 7,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,013
of 155,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#43
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 155,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.