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 |
Systematic review protocol of interventions to improve the psychological well-being of general practitioners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0098-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marylou Murray, Lois Murray, Michael Donnelly |
| Abstract |
The challenges and complexities faced by general practitioners are increasing, and there are concerns about their well-being. Consequently, attention has been directed towards developing and evaluating interventions and strategies to improve general practitioner well-being and their capacity to cope with workplace challenges. This systematic review aims to evaluate research evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve general practitioner well-being. Eligible studies will include programmes developed to improve psychological well-being that have assessed outcomes using validated tools pertaining to well-being and related outcomes. Only programmes that have been evaluated using controlled study designs will be reviewed. An appropriately developed search strategy will be applied to six electronic databases: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies will be screened in two stages by two independent reviewers. A third reviewer will arbitrate when required. Pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed during a pilot phase early on in the review process. The Cochrane data extraction form will be adapted and applied to each eligible study by two independent reviewers, and each study will be appraised critically using standardised checklists from the Cochrane Handbook. Methodological quality will be taken into account in the analysis of the data and the synthesis of results. A narrative synthesis will be undertaken if data is unsuited to a meta-analysis. The systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance. This will be the first systematic review on this topic, and the evidence synthesis will aid decision-making by general practitioners, policy makers and planners regarding ways in which to improve GP well-being. Findings will be disseminated at general practitioner meetings, conferences and in professional and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO CRD42015017899. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 19% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 31% |
| Psychology | 33 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,460,359
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,303
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,747
of 274,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 274,417 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.