| Title |
Using shared goal setting to improve access and equity: a mixed methods study of the Good Goals intervention in children’s occupational therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-76 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niina Kolehmainen, Graeme MacLennan, Laura Ternent, Edward AS Duncan, Eilidh M Duncan, Stephen B Ryan, Lorna McKee, Jill J Francis |
| Abstract |
Access and equity in children's therapy services may be improved by directing clinicians' use of resources toward specific goals that are important to patients. A practice-change intervention (titled 'Good Goals') was designed to achieve this. This study investigated uptake, adoption, and possible effects of that intervention in children's occupational therapy services. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 Kingdom | 7 | 26% |
| United States | 5 | 19% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 78% |
| Scientists | 3 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,990,424
of 24,904,819 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#399
of 1,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,012
of 156,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,904,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 156,501 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 35 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 91% of its contemporaries.