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 |
Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-28 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Nishimura, Jantey Carey, Patricia J Erwin, Jon C Tilburt, M Hassan Murad, Jennifer B McCormick |
| Abstract |
Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 31% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 31% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 326 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 76 | 23% |
| Researcher | 49 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 10% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 63 | 19% |
| Unknown | 54 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 28 | 8% |
| Psychology | 24 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 4% |
| Other | 63 | 19% |
| Unknown | 76 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,123,780
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#80
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,811
of 200,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 200,760 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 95% of its contemporaries.
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 6 of them.