| Title |
General practitioners’ role in shared decision-making about palliative cancer treatment: qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, October 2021
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0446 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danique W Bos-van den Hoek, Naomi Ca van der Velden, Rozemarijn Huisman, Hanneke Wm van Laarhoven, Dorien Tange, Jan Wind, Ellen Ma Smets, Inge Henselmans |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 April 2022.
All research outputs
#4,646,489
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,759
of 4,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,400
of 441,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#36
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. 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 441,037 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 55% of its contemporaries.