↓ Skip to main content

‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francine Toye, Kate Seers, Nick Allcock, Michelle Briggs, Eloise Carr, JoyAnn Andrews, Karen Barker

Abstract

Studies that systematically search for and synthesise qualitative research are becoming more evident in health care, and they can make an important contribution to patient care. However, there is still no agreement as to whether, or how we should appraise studies for inclusion. We aimed to explore the intuitive processes that determined the 'quality' of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative research syntheses. We were particularly interested to explore the way that knowledge was constructed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 5%
Australia 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 96 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 28%
Social Sciences 19 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Psychology 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 14 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 25 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,835,134
of 17,060,012 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#310
of 1,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,733
of 159,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,060,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 159,967 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them