↓ Skip to main content

Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Why is reporting quality improvement so hard? A qualitative study in perioperative care
Published in
BMJ Open, July 2019
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Leanne Jones, Mary Dixon-Woods, Graham P Martin

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 60%
Professor 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%
Social Sciences 1 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 30 August 2019.
All research outputs
#704,332
of 13,571,715 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,573
of 12,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,795
of 242,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#78
of 921 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,571,715 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 242,470 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 921 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 91% of its contemporaries.