↓ Skip to main content

Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 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
Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Albrecht, Mandy Archibald, Danielle Arseneau, Shannon D Scott

Abstract

Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 197 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 18%
Researcher 37 18%
Other 21 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Other 57 27%
Unknown 18 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 22%
Social Sciences 32 15%
Psychology 29 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Decision Sciences 6 3%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 36 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,244,056
of 16,722,463 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#790
of 1,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,146
of 160,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,722,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 160,180 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.