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 |
The effect of improving task representativeness on capturing nurses’ risk assessment judgements: a comparison of written case simulations and physical simulations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Huiqin Yang, Carl Thompson, Robert M Hamm, Martin Bland, Alison Foster |
| Abstract |
The validity of studies describing clinicians' judgements based on their responses to paper cases is questionable, because - commonly used - paper case simulations only partly reflect real clinical environments. In this study we test whether paper case simulations evoke similar risk assessment judgements to the more realistic simulated patients used in high fidelity physical simulations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
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 07 June 2013.
All research outputs
#15,272,977
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,307
of 1,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,159
of 195,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,981 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 195,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.