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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Net benefits: assessing the effectiveness of clinical networks in Australia through qualitative methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-108 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frances C Cunningham, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Johanna I Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite |
| Abstract |
In the 21st century, government and industry are supplementing hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization with network forms, compatible with principles of devolved governance and decentralization of services. Clinical networks are employed as a key health policy approach to engage clinicians in improving patient care in Australia. With significant investment in such networks in Australia and internationally, it is important to assess their effectiveness and sustainability as implementation mechanisms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 140 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 15% |
| Psychology | 18 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 24% |
| Unknown | 32 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,852,013
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,011
of 1,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,994
of 184,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,718 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 184,200 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 51% of its contemporaries.