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 |
Supporting self-management after attending a structured education programme: a qualitative longitudinal investigation of type 1 diabetes patients’ experiences and views
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-652 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Rankin, Debbie D Cooke, Jackie Elliott, Simon R Heller, Julia Lawton, the UK NIHR DAFNE Study Group |
| Abstract |
Structured education programmes for patients with diabetes and other chronic conditions are being widely adopted. However, follow-up studies suggest that course graduates may struggle to sustain the self-care practices taught on their courses over time. This study explored the support needs of patients with type 1 diabetes after attending a structured education programme promoting an empowerment approach and training in use of flexible intensive insulin therapy, a regimen now widely advocated and used to manage this condition. The objective was to inform future support offered to course graduates. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 20% |
| Researcher | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 10% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 16% |
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 15 August 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,707
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,246
of 14,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,864
of 167,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#256
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 167,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.