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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of quality improvement strategies on the quality of life and well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah EP Munce, Laure Perrier, Andrea C Tricco, Sharon E Straus, Michael G Fehlings, Monika Kastner, Eunice Jang, Fiona Webster, Susan B Jaglal |
| Abstract |
After a spinal cord injury, quality of life, as well as the determinants of quality of life, has been widely assessed. However, to date, there have been no systematic reviews on the impact of quality improvement strategies, including self-management strategies, on the quality of life and well-being of individuals with a spinal cord injury. The current protocol outlines a strategy for a systematic review that aims to identify, assess, and synthesize evidence on the impact of quality improvement strategies on the quality of life and physical and psychological well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 23% |
| Psychology | 26 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
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 28 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,187,333
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,902
of 1,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,686
of 192,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 192,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.