↓ Skip to main content

Using qualitative evidence on patients’ views to help understand variation in effectiveness of complex interventions: a qualitative comparative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Using qualitative evidence on patients’ views to help understand variation in effectiveness of complex interventions: a qualitative comparative analysis
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Candy, Michael King, Louise Jones, Sandy Oliver

Abstract

Complex healthcare interventions consist of multiple components which may vary in trials conducted in different populations and contexts. Pooling evidence from trials in a systematic review is challenging because it is unclear which components are needed for effectiveness. The potential is recognised for using recipients' views to explore why some complex interventions are effective and others are not. Methods to maximise this potential are poorly developed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Ireland 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
India 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 54 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Social Sciences 11 18%
Psychology 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 7 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,098,062
of 14,668,766 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#839
of 3,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,439
of 154,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,668,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 154,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them