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 |
Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Dixon-Woods, Debbie Cavers, Shona Agarwal, Ellen Annandale, Antony Arthur, Janet Harvey, Ron Hsu, Savita Katbamna, Richard Olsen, Lucy Smith, Richard Riley, Alex J Sutton |
| Abstract |
Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 | 17 | 32% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 29 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 49% |
| Scientists | 19 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,515 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 27 | 2% |
| Canada | 10 | <1% |
| South Africa | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Uganda | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1453 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 305 | 20% |
| Researcher | 230 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 227 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 109 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 75 | 5% |
| Other | 291 | 19% |
| Unknown | 278 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 350 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 274 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 168 | 11% |
| Psychology | 112 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 57 | 4% |
| Other | 228 | 15% |
| Unknown | 326 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 14 December 2023.
All research outputs
#872,323
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#76
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,334
of 90,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 90,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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