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 |
Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision‐making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009401.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lakshmi Murthy, Sasha Shepperd, Mike J Clarke, Sarah E Garner, John N Lavis, Laure Perrier, Nia W Roberts, Sharon E Straus |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews provide a transparent and robust summary of existing research. However, health system managers, national and local policy makers and healthcare professionals can face several obstacles when attempting to utilise this evidence. These include constraints operating within the health system, dealing with a large volume of research evidence and difficulties in adapting evidence from systematic reviews so that it is locally relevant. In an attempt to increase the use of systematic review evidence in decision-making a number of interventions have been developed. These include summaries of systematic review evidence that are designed to improve the accessibility of the findings of systematic reviews (often referred to as information products) and changes to organisational structures, such as employing specialist groups to synthesise the evidence to inform local decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 30% |
| Canada | 2 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Egypt | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 617 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Barbados | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | <1% |
| Unknown | 593 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 117 | 19% |
| Researcher | 102 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 73 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 33 | 5% |
| Other | 113 | 18% |
| Unknown | 141 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 193 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 69 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 59 | 10% |
| Psychology | 37 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 80 | 13% |
| Unknown | 166 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#5,146,574
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,073
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,337
of 187,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#129
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 187,469 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 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.