↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for participation and non-participation in a diabetes prevention trial among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Reasons for participation and non-participation in a diabetes prevention trial among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer J Infanti, Angela O’Dea, Irene Gibson, Brian E McGuire, John Newell, Liam G Glynn, Ciaran O’Neill, Susan B Connolly, Fidelma P Dunne

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle intervention can prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in high risk populations. We designed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of an established lifestyle intervention compared to standard care for delaying diabetes onset in European women with recent GDM. Recruitment into the RCT was more challenging than anticipated with only 89 of 410 (22%) women agreeing to participate. This paper identifies factors that could enhance participation of the target population in future interventions.

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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 176 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 17%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Psychology 13 7%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 37 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,683,284
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#250
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,170
of 193,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 193,009 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.