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 |
Comparative Effectiveness of Cognitive Therapies Delivered Face-to-Face or over the Telephone: An Observational Study Using Propensity Methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0042916 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geoffrey C. Hammond, Tim J. Croudace, Muralikrishnan Radhakrishnan, Louise Lafortune, Alison Watson, Fiona McMillan-Shields, Peter B. Jones |
| Abstract |
To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face (FTF) with over-the-telephone (OTT) delivery of low intensity cognitive behavioural therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 5 | 28% |
| United States | 5 | 28% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 12% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 43 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 88 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 February 2014.
All research outputs
#2,097,005
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,797
of 193,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,672
of 172,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#469
of 4,426 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,573 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 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 172,156 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 4,426 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.