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 |
How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building: a framework and a case study of its application
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2021
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12874-021-01288-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jan W. van der Scheer, Matthew Woodward, Akbar Ansari, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter, Graham Martin, Karolina Kuberska, Natalie Richards, Ruth Kern, Mary Dixon-Woods |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 | 29 | 50% |
Australia | 3 | 5% |
United States | 2 | 3% |
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 23 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 35 | 60% |
Scientists | 17 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
Researcher | 10 | 9% |
Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
Other | 19 | 17% |
Unknown | 49 | 45% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 16% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 16% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Psychology | 5 | 5% |
Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
Other | 10 | 9% |
Unknown | 51 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#927,923
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#78
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,566
of 435,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. 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 435,616 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 96% of its contemporaries.