↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-45
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niklas Bobrovitz, Julia S Parrilla, Maria Santana, Sharon E Straus, Henry T Stelfox

Abstract

Consensus methodologies are often used to create evidence-based measures of healthcare quality because they incorporate both available evidence and expert opinion to fill gaps in the knowledge base. However, there are limited studies of the key domains that are considered during panel discussion when developing quality indicators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Unspecified 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Unspecified 4 7%
Chemical Engineering 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 6 11%

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 19 April 2013.
All research outputs
#3,355,993
of 5,040,289 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#761
of 826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,394
of 92,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,040,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 92,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.