↓ Skip to main content

EQUIP: Implementing chronic care principles and applying formative evaluation methods to improve care for schizophrenia: QUERI Series

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
EQUIP: Implementing chronic care principles and applying formative evaluation methods to improve care for schizophrenia: QUERI Series
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2008
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-3-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison H Brown, Amy N Cohen, Matthew J Chinman, Christopher Kessler, Alexander S Young

Abstract

This paper presents a case study that demonstrates the evolution of a project entitled "Enhancing QUality-of-care In Psychosis" (EQUIP) that began approximately when the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), and implementation science were emerging. EQUIP developed methods and tools to implement chronic illness care principles in the treatment of schizophrenia, and evaluated this implementation using a small-scale controlled trial. The next iteration of the project, EQUIP-2, was further informed by implementation science and the use of QUERI tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 74 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 25%
Psychology 15 19%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,337,420
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,644
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,027
of 157,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. 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 157,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.