↓ Skip to main content

Getting better at chronic care in remote communities: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled of community based management

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Getting better at chronic care in remote communities: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled of community based management
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Schmidt, Mark Wenitong, Adrian Esterman, Wendy Hoy, Leonie Segal, Sean Taylor, Cilla Preece, Alex Sticpewich, Robyn McDermott

Abstract

Prevalence and incidence of diabetes and other common comorbid conditions (hypertension, coronary heart disease, renal disease and chronic lung disease) are extremely high among Indigenous Australians. Recent measures to improve quality of preventive care in Indigenous community settings, while apparently successful at increasing screening and routine check-up rates, have shown only modest or little improvements in appropriate care such as the introduction of insulin and other scaled-up drug regimens in line with evidence-based guidelines, together with support for risk factor reduction. A new strategy is required to ensure high quality integrated family-centred care is available locally, with continuity and cultural safety, by community-based care coordinators with appropriate system supports.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 335 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 12%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 63 18%
Unknown 91 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 59 17%
Social Sciences 25 7%
Psychology 12 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 40 12%
Unknown 106 31%
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 29 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,260,208
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,263
of 14,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,222
of 275,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#218
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 275,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.