↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th 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
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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 127 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 122 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Librarian 12 9%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 24%
Social Sciences 16 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 16 13%

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
#2,261,523
of 14,288,069 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,035
of 10,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,948
of 265,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,288,069 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 265,264 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 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.