↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 55 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 32%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Unspecified 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 12%

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
#2,015,397
of 3,616,992 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,490
of 2,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,887
of 95,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#124
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,616,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,125 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. 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 95,814 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 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.