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 the impact and costs of a universal group based parenting programme: protocol and implementation of a trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-10-364 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas E Simkiss, Helen A Snooks, Nigel Stallard, Shan Davies, Marie A Thomas, Becky Anthony, Sarah Winstanley, Lynsey Wilson, Sarah Stewart-Brown |
| Abstract |
Sub-optimal parenting is a common risk factor for a wide range of negative health, social and educational outcomes. Most parenting programmes have been developed in the USA in the context of delinquency prevention for targeted or indicated groups and the main theoretical underpinning for these programmes is behaviour management. The Family Links Nurturing Programme (FLNP) focuses on family relationships as well as behaviour management and is offered on a universal basis. As a result it may be better placed to improve health and educational outcomes. Developed in the UK voluntary sector, FLNP is popular with practitioners, has impressed policy makers throughout the UK, has been found to be effective in before/after and qualitative studies, but lacks a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence base. |
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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 18% |
| Researcher | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 37 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 35 | 26% |
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 15 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,329,207
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,776
of 14,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,355
of 93,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#69
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 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 14,772 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 93,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.