↓ Skip to main content

Does journal club membership improve research evidence uptake in different allied health disciplines: a pre-post study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Does journal club membership improve research evidence uptake in different allied health disciplines: a pre-post study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-5-588
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucylynn M Lizarondo, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Saravana Kumar, Alan Crockett

Abstract

Although allied health is considered to be one 'unit' of healthcare providers, it comprises a range of disciplines which have different training and ways of thinking, and different tasks and methods of patient care. Very few empirical studies on evidence-based practice (EBP) have directly compared allied health professionals. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a structured model of journal club (JC), known as iCAHE (International Centre for Allied Health Evidence) JC, on the EBP knowledge, skills and behaviour of the different allied health disciplines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 100 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Other 9 8%
Librarian 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 30 28%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,397,794
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#158
of 4,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,566
of 187,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 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 4,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 187,335 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 97% of its contemporaries.