↓ Skip to main content

Recruitment difficulties in a primary care cluster randomised trial: investigating factors contributing to general practitioners' recruitment of patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Recruitment difficulties in a primary care cluster randomised trial: investigating factors contributing to general practitioners' recruitment of patients
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J Page, Simon D French, Joanne E McKenzie, Denise A O'Connor, Sally E Green

Abstract

Recruitment of patients by health professionals is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking studies in primary care settings. Numerous investigations of the barriers to patient recruitment in trials which recruit patients to receive an intervention have been published. However, we are not aware of any studies that have reported on the recruitment barriers as perceived by health professionals to recruiting patients into cluster randomised trials where patients do not directly receive an intervention. This particular subtype of cluster trial is commonly termed a professional-cluster trial. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that contributed to general practitioners recruitment of patients in a professional-cluster trial which evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to increase general practitioners adherence to a clinical practice guideline for acute low-back pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 3%
Australia 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 45%
Psychology 8 13%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,311,017
of 4,507,144 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#347
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,472
of 283,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,144 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 550 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 283,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.