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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003479 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paddy Gillespie, Eamon O'Shea, Dympna Casey, Kathy Murphy, Declan Devane, Adeline Cooney, Lorraine Mee, Collette Kirwan, Bernard McCarthy, John Newell, for the PRINCE study team |
| Abstract |
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme (SEPRP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relative to usual practice in primary care. The programme consisted of group-based sessions delivered jointly by practice nurses and physiotherapists over 8 weeks. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 22% |
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#19,084
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,054
of 317,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#186
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 317,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.