↓ Skip to main content

Which chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care recommendations have low implementation and why? A pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Which chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care recommendations have low implementation and why? A pilot study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-5-652
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie Johnston, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Mary Young, Ral Antic, Peter Frith

Abstract

Clinical care components for people with COPD are recommended in guidelines if high-level evidence exists. However, there are gaps in their implementation, and factors which act as barriers or facilitators to their uptake are not well described. The aim of this pilot study was to explore implementation of key high-evidence COPD guideline recommendations in patients admitted to hospital with a disease exacerbation, to inform the development of a larger observational study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Psychology 7 9%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,321,703
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,006
of 4,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,506
of 276,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#54
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 276,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.