↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to successful implementation of care in home haemodialysis (BASIC-HHD):1. Study design, methods and rationale

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Barriers to successful implementation of care in home haemodialysis (BASIC-HHD):1. Study design, methods and rationale
Published in
BMC Nephrology, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2369-14-197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anuradha Jayanti, Alison J Wearden, Julie Morris, Paul Brenchley, Inger Abma, Steffen Bayer, James Barlow, Sandip Mitra

Abstract

Ten years on from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence' technology appraisal guideline on haemodialysis in 2002; the clinical community is yet to rise to the challenge of providing home haemodialysis (HHD) to 10-15% of the dialysis cohort. The renal registry report, suggests underutilization of a treatment type that has had a lot of research interest and several publications worldwide on its apparent benefit for both physical and mental health of patients. An understanding of the drivers to introducing and sustaining the modality, from organizational, economic, clinical and patient perspectives is fundamental to realizing the full benefits of the therapy with the potential to provide evidence base for effective care models. Through the BASIC-HHD study, we seek to understand the clinical, patient and carer related psychosocial, economic and organisational determinants of successful uptake and maintenance of home haemodialysis and thereby, engage all major stakeholders in the process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Psychology 19 11%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 43 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,043,376
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#982
of 2,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,571
of 201,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#23
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,459 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 201,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.