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 |
Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-121 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sue E Brennan, Marije Bosch, Heather Buchan, Sally E Green |
| Abstract |
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 4 | 31% |
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 8% |
| Psychology | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,043,768
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#630
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,336
of 273,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 273,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.