↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of staffing models in residential, subacute, extended aged care settings on patient and staff outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Effectiveness of staffing models in residential, subacute, extended aged care settings on patient and staff outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006563.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brent Hodgkinson, Emily J Haesler, Rhonda Nay, Megan H O'Donnell, Linda P McAuliffe

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 148 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Librarian 11 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Social Sciences 18 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 30 20%

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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,935,635
of 17,355,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,584
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,266
of 271,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,355,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 271,855 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.