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 Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) project: introduction and main findings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0536-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michel Wensing |
| Abstract |
The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) project aims to contribute knowledge on how to improve healthcare for patients with chronic diseases and, at the same time, knowledge on concepts and methods of tailoring interventions to local conditions. In this contribution, the project is briefly introduced and its main findings are discussed. The tailored implementation programs in the TICD project had little impact, for which we provide a range of potential explanations. Structured group interviews with informed stakeholders, such as clinicians and researchers, were used to generate perceived determinants of practice and suggestions for tailored implementation strategies. They were productive and valid, yet incomplete, if compared to perceptions of healthcare providers who received the tailored implementation programs. Ongoing monitoring of determinants of practice during intervention delivery seems required to adapt the interventions to emerging needs and opportunities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 States | 9 | 35% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Andorra | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 58% |
| Scientists | 8 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 15% |
| Psychology | 10 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,089,105
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#467
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,582
of 421,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 421,506 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.