↓ Skip to main content

Impact of quality improvement strategies on the quality of life and well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
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
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 180 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 178 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 21%
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 29 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 23%
Psychology 26 14%
Social Sciences 20 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 36 20%

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
#11,058,835
of 12,440,173 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#957
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,799
of 144,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,173 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 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. 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 144,320 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.