↓ Skip to main content

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 5,014)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
154 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study
Published in
Trials, October 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2964-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marita Hennessy, Andrew Hunter, Patricia Healy, Sandra Galvin, Catherine Houghton

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 154 tweeters 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 5 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#274,145
of 19,422,089 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#32
of 5,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,644
of 337,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#7
of 553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,422,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 337,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 553 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.