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 |
Quality of Longer Term Mental Health Facilities in Europe: Validation of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care against Service Users’ Views
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0038070 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen Killaspy, Sarah White, Christine Wright, Tatiana L. Taylor, Penny Turton, Thomas Kallert, Mirjam Schuster, Jorge A. Cervilla, Paulette Brangier, Jiri Raboch, Lucie Kalisova, Georgi Onchev, Spiridon Alexiev, Roberto Mezzina, Pina Ridente, Durk Wiersma, Ellen Visser, Andrzej Kiejna, Patryk Piotrowski, Dimitris Ploumpidis, Fragiskos Gonidakis, José Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, Graça Cardoso, Michael King |
| Abstract |
The Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC) is a staff rated, international toolkit that assesses care in longer term hospital and community based mental health facilities. The QuIRC was developed from review of the international literature, an international Delphi exercise with over 400 service users, practitioners, carers and advocates from ten European countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation, and review of the care standards in these countries. It can be completed in under an hour by the facility manager and has robust content validity, acceptability and inter-rater reliability. In this study, we investigated the internal validity of the QuIRC. Our aim was to identify the QuIRC domains of care that independently predicted better service user experiences of care. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 24% |
| Psychology | 17 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,683,379
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#34,271
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,338
of 166,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#596
of 3,803 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 166,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,803 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.