↓ Skip to main content

Systematic tailoring for the implementation of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders in general practice: perceived usefulness of tailored interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Systematic tailoring for the implementation of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders in general practice: perceived usefulness of tailored interventions
Published in
BMC Family Practice, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-14-94
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henny Sinnema, Berend Terluin, Michel Wensing, Daniëlle Volker, Gerdien Franx, Anton van Balkom, Jacomine de Lange

Abstract

The uptake of guideline recommendations in general practice can potentially be improved by designing implementation interventions that are tailored to prospectively identify barriers. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the most effective and efficient approaches to tailoring. Our study provides an insight into the usefulness of tailored interventions to prospectively identified barriers affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders experienced by general practitioners (GPs) in their local context.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 9%
Barbados 1 2%
Ecuador 1 2%
Uganda 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 49 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Computer Science 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 8 14%

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 July 2013.
All research outputs
#2,016,981
of 3,628,597 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#402
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,620
of 85,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#25
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,628,597 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 85,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.