↓ Skip to main content

The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 1,546)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
909 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
801 Mendeley
citeulike
7 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
The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-7-30
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob McCarney, James Warner, Steve Iliffe, Robbert van Haselen, Mark Griffin, Peter Fisher

Abstract

The 'Hawthorne Effect' may be an important factor affecting the generalisability of clinical research to routine practice, but has been little studied. Hawthorne Effects have been reported in previous clinical trials in dementia but to our knowledge, no attempt has been made to quantify them. Our aim was to compare minimal follow-up to intensive follow-up in participants in a placebo controlled trial of Ginkgo biloba for treating mild-moderate dementia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 801 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 12 1%
United States 9 1%
Germany 4 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 11 1%
Unknown 753 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 157 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 151 19%
Student > Bachelor 117 15%
Researcher 103 13%
Student > Postgraduate 52 6%
Other 158 20%
Unknown 63 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 250 31%
Psychology 85 11%
Social Sciences 61 8%
Computer Science 54 7%
Engineering 43 5%
Other 201 25%
Unknown 107 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#371,562
of 16,369,142 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#32
of 1,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,426
of 15,299,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#32
of 1,543 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,369,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 15,299,357 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,543 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.