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 |
Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-32 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle Mazza, Phillip Bairstow, Heather Buchan, Samantha Paubrey Chakraborty, Oliver Van Hecke, Cathy Grech, Ilkka Kunnamo |
| Abstract |
To better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of implementation strategies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 154 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Professor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 27% |
| Unknown | 30 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 12% |
| Psychology | 13 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 25% |
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 24 March 2013.
All research outputs
#7,198,151
of 25,800,372 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,131
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,967
of 210,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,800,372 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. 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 210,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.