↓ Skip to main content

Recruiting equal numbers of indigenous and non-indigenous participants to a ‘polypill’ randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Recruiting equal numbers of indigenous and non-indigenous participants to a ‘polypill’ randomized trial
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1475-9276-12-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Selak, Sue Crengle, C Raina Elley, Angela Wadham, Matire Harwood, Natasha Rafter, Chris Bullen, Avinesh Pillai, Bruce Arroll, Anthony Rodgers

Abstract

Māori are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the main reason for the eight year difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori. The primary care-based IMPACT (IMProving Adherence using Combination Therapy) trial evaluates whether fixed dose combination therapy (a "polypill") improves adherence to guideline-based therapy compared with current care among people at high risk of CVD. Interventions shown in trials to be effective do not necessarily reduce ethnic disparities, and may in fact widen them. Indigenous populations with poorer health outcomes are often under-represented in trials so the effect of interventions cannot be assessed for them, specifically. Therefore, the IMPACT trial aimed to recruit as many Māori as non-Māori to assess the consistency of the effect of the polypill. This paper describes the methods and results of the recruitment strategy used to achieve this.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Unspecified 5 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 42 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 November 2023.
All research outputs
#14,809,827
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,503
of 2,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,477
of 202,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 202,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.