| Title |
Implementation of a complex intervention to improve care for patients whose situations are clinically uncertain in hospital settings: A multi-method study using normalisation process theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0239181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Halle Johnson, Emel Yorganci, Catherine J. Evans, Stephen Barclay, Fliss E. M. Murtagh, Deokhee Yi, Wei Gao, Elizabeth L. Sampson, Joanne Droney, Morag Farquhar, Jonathan Koffman |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 | 24 | 46% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Hungary | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 24 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 60% |
| Scientists | 10 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 06 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,138,602
of 24,562,945 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#14,751
of 212,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,431
of 381,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#289
of 2,873 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,562,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 381,606 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 2,873 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.