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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-6-45 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoine Boivin, Pascale Lehoux, Réal Lacombe, Anaïs Lacasse, Jako Burgers, Richard Grol |
| Abstract |
Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 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% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,061,356
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,367
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,992
of 109,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 109,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.