| Title |
Hospital nurse staffing models and patient and staff‐related outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007019.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Butler, Rita Collins, Jonathan Drennan, Phil Halligan, Dónal P O'Mathúna, Timothy J Schultz, Ann Sheridan, Eileen Vilis |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 46% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 238 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 50 | 20% |
| Researcher | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 85 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 52 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 7% |
| Psychology | 14 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 53 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,701,257
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,344
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,602
of 128,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 128,392 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 67% of its contemporaries.