↓ Skip to main content

Between and within-site variation in qualitative implementation research

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Between and within-site variation in qualitative implementation research
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin K Benzer, Sarah Beehler, Irene E Cramer, David C Mohr, Martin P Charns, James F Burgess

Abstract

Multisite qualitative studies are challenging in part because decisions regarding within-site and between-site sampling must be made to reduce the complexity of data collection, but these decisions may have serious implications for analyses. There is not yet consensus on how to account for within-site and between-site variations in qualitative perceptions of the organizational context of interventions. The purpose of this study was to analyze variation in perceptions among key informants in order to demonstrate the importance of broad sampling for identifying both within-site and between-site implementation themes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Sierra Leone 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 92 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 18%
Social Sciences 18 18%
Psychology 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 13 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 March 2013.
All research outputs
#3,854,246
of 14,700,241 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#895
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,286
of 254,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#49
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,700,241 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 254,288 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 76% 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 is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.