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 |
Protocol for a systematic review of the use of narrative storytelling and visual-arts-based approaches as knowledge translation tools in healthcare
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon D Scott, Pamela Brett-MacLean, Mandy Archibald, Lisa Hartling |
| Abstract |
The arts are powerful, accessible forms of communication that have the potential to impart knowledge by attracting interest and developing meaningful connections. Knowledge translation aims to reduce the 'evidence-practice' gap by developing, implementing and evaluating strategies designed to enhance awareness and promote behavior change congruent with research evidence. Increasingly, innovative approaches such as narrative storytelling and other arts-based interventions are being investigated to bridge the growing gap between practice and research. This study is the first to systematically identify and synthesize current research on narrative storytelling and visual art to translate and disseminate health research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 52% |
| Scientists | 6 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 17% |
| Researcher | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Librarian | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Psychology | 11 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,367,625
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#385
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,922
of 211,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 211,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.