Title |
An interdisciplinary knowledge translation intervention in long-term care: Study protocol for the vitamin D and osteoporosis study (ViDOS) pilot cluster randomized controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-48 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Courtney C Kennedy, George Ioannidis, Lora M Giangregorio, Jonathan D Adachi, Lehana Thabane, Suzanne N Morin, Richard G Crilly, Sharon Marr, Robert G Josse, Lynne Lohfeld, Laura E Pickard, Susanne King, Mary-Lou van der Horst, Glenda Campbell, Jackie Stroud, Lisa Dolovich, Anna M Sawka, Ravi Jain, Lynn Nash, Alexandra Papaioannou |
Abstract |
Knowledge translation (KT) research in long-term care (LTC) is still in its early stages. This protocol describes the evaluation of a multifaceted, interdisciplinary KT intervention aimed at integrating evidence-based osteoporosis and fracture prevention strategies into LTC care processes. |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Latvia | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 202 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 37 | 18% |
Researcher | 26 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
Unspecified | 11 | 5% |
Other | 52 | 25% |
Unknown | 45 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 12 | 6% |
Unspecified | 11 | 5% |
Sports and Recreations | 10 | 5% |
Other | 42 | 20% |
Unknown | 55 | 26% |
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 25 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,144,226
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,480
of 1,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,275
of 164,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 164,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.