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 |
Do personalised e-mail invitations increase the response rates of breast cancer survivors invited to participate in a web-based behaviour change intervention? A quasi-randomised 2-arm controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-015-0063-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Camille E. Short, Amanda L. Rebar, Corneel Vandelanotte |
| Abstract |
Previous research has shown that the personalisation of study invitations improves response rates in survey-based research. To examine if this finding extends to experimental studies, we examined the impact of personalised study invitation e-mails on the response rates of potentially eligible breast cancer survivors for participation in a 6 month randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of a physical activity intervention. Potential participants (n = 344) were sent either a personalised email or a generic email. Those sent the personalised email were 1.5 times (95 % CI = 1.18-1.93) more likely to respond than those sent the generic email. These findings suggest that personalisation may be a useful and potentially powerful tool that can be utilised when recruiting participants into experimental studies in order to boost response rates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 23% |
| Psychology | 15 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
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 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,770,433
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,677
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,460
of 266,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 266,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.