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 |
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001865.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian GK Edwards, Gurudutt Naik, Harry Ahmed, Glyn J Elwyn, Timothy Pickles, Kerry Hood, Rebecca Playle |
| Abstract |
There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 6 | 24% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 498 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 485 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 71 | 14% |
| Researcher | 60 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 11% |
| Other | 31 | 6% |
| Other | 85 | 17% |
| Unknown | 118 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 157 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 12% |
| Psychology | 38 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Other | 61 | 12% |
| Unknown | 137 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#997,501
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,995
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,889
of 205,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 205,561 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.