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 |
Quality improvement collaboratives and the wisdom of crowds: spread explained by perceived success at group level
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0091-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michel L A Dückers, Peter P Groenewegen, Cordula Wagner |
| Abstract |
Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) on the quality of healthcare. This article addresses an underexplored topic, namely the use of QICs as 'intentional spread strategy.' Its objective is to predict the dissemination of projects within hospitals participating in a change programme based on several QICs. We tested whether the average project success at QIC level (based on opinions of individual project team leaders) explains the dissemination of projects one year later. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#12,901,402
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,334
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,256
of 228,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 228,540 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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.