↓ Skip to main content

Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-380
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karena M Conroy, Doug Elliott, Anthony R Burrell

Abstract

In the intensive care unit (ICU), checklists can be used to support the delivery of quality and consistent clinical care. While studies have reported important benefits for clinical checklists in this context, lack of formal validity testing in the literature prompted the study aim; to develop relevant 'process-of-care' checklist statements, using rigorously applied and reported methods that were clear, concise and reflective of the current evidence base. These statements will be sufficiently instructive for use by physicians during ICU clinical rounds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Unspecified 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 12 27%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 43%
Unspecified 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#7,141,515
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,579
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,694
of 161,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 161,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.