↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Self‐treating hypoglycaemia: a longitudinal qualitative investigation of the experiences and views of people with Type 1 diabetes
Published in
Diabetic Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1111/dme.12007
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Lawton, D. Rankin, D. D. Cooke, J. Elliott, S. Amiel, S. Heller, for the UK NIHR DAFNE Study Group

Abstract

  Despite improvements in insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia remains an inevitable part of life for many people with Type 1 diabetes. Little attention has been paid to how individuals self-treat hypoglycaemia and their likes and dislikes of clinically recommended treatments. We explored participants' experiences of self-treating hypoglycaemia after attending a structured education programme for people with Type 1 diabetes. Our aims were: to identify treatments that are acceptable to people with Type 1 diabetes; and to provide recommendations for promoting self-treatment in line with clinical guidelines.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 131 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 39 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Psychology 15 11%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,195,206
of 24,633,436 outputs
Outputs from Diabetic Medicine
#2,946
of 3,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,265
of 288,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetic Medicine
#42
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,633,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 288,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.