| Title |
Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence‐based nursing practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002212.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerd Flodgren, Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes, Nick Cole, David R Foxcroft |
| Abstract |
Nurses and midwives form the bulk of the clinical health workforce and play a central role in all health service delivery. There is potential to improve health care quality if nurses routinely use the best available evidence in their clinical practice. Since many of the factors perceived by nurses as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) lie at the organisational level, it is of interest to devise and assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures designed to promote EBP among nurses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 200 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Researcher | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 16% |
| Unknown | 71 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 53 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 20% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 77 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,401,150
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,678
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,905
of 258,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 258,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.