↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Using physician-linked mailed invitations in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: effectiveness and factors associated with response

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Peer reviews Dimensions citations
Title
Using physician-linked mailed invitations in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: effectiveness and factors associated with response
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004494
Pubmed ID
24622950
Authors

Jill Tinmouth, Nancy N Baxter, Lawrence F Paszat, Linda Rabeneck, Rinku Sutradhar, Lingsong Yun

Abstract

A central tenet of organised cancer screening is that all persons in a target population are invited. The aims of this study were to identify participant and physician factors associated with response to mailed physician-linked invitations (study 1) and to evaluate their effectiveness in an organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme (study 2).

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#15,291,649
of 23,507,888 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,908
of 23,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,393
of 222,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#205
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,507,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 222,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.