↓ Skip to main content

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying: what went wrong?

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
The Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying: what went wrong?
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, October 2013
DOI 10.3399/bjgp13x673559
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Knights, Diana Wood, Stephen Barclay

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 22%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 24%
Unspecified 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,205,830
of 13,595,880 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#616
of 2,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,453
of 182,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#6
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,595,880 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 182,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.