↓ Skip to main content

Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan K Baxter, Lindsay Blank, Helen Buckley Woods, Nick Payne, Melanie Rimmer, Elizabeth Goyder

Abstract

There is increasing interest in innovative methods to carry out systematic reviews of complex interventions. Theory-based approaches, such as logic models, have been suggested as a means of providing additional insights beyond that obtained via conventional review methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 166 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 5%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 25%
Social Sciences 22 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Psychology 13 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 39 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,652,061
of 25,629,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#198
of 2,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,965
of 242,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,629,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 242,341 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 96% of its contemporaries.