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 |
Description and initial evaluation of incorporating electronic follow-up of study participants in a longstanding multisite cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0226-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kiarri N. Kershaw, Kiang Liu, David C. Goff, Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, Laura J. Rasmussen-Torvik, Jared P. Reis, Pamela J. Schreiner, Daniel B. Garside, Stephen Sidney |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to evaluate a pilot program that allowed Chicago field center participants of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study to submit follow-up information electronically (eCARDIA). Chicago field center participants who provided email addresses were invited to complete contact information and follow-up questionnaires on medical conditions electronically in 2012-2013. Sociodemographic characteristics were compared between those who did and did not complete follow-up electronically. The number of participant contacts by CARDIA staff needed before follow-up was completed was also evaluated. Blacks and low socioeconomic position individuals were less likely to complete follow-up using the electronic questionnaire. Participants who used the electronic questionnaire for follow-up needed fewer contacts (e.g., median 1 contact compared with 3for contact information follow-up), but they also needed fewer contacts prior to eCARDIA (median 1 before and after eCARDIA). Findings suggest other approaches will be needed to maintain contact and elicit follow-up information from harder-to-reach individuals. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 25% |
| Researcher | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 2 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,342,896
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,887
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,280
of 321,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#43
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 321,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.