| Title |
General Practitioners’ use and understanding of the quantitative benefits and harms of treatments for common long-term conditions: a qualitative interview study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp.2020.1027 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julian Treadwell, Joanna Crocker, Alexander Rushforth, Kamal Mahtani, Trish Greenhalgh |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 | 21 | 41% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 18% |
| Scientists | 8 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Design | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 03 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,098,590
of 25,203,135 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#490
of 4,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,769
of 435,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#13
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,203,135 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 4,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 435,124 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.