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 |
An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silvia Cervo, Jane Rovina, Renato Talamini, Tiziana Perin, Vincenzo Canzonieri, Paolo De Paoli, Agostino Steffan |
| Abstract |
Efforts to improve patients' understanding of their own medical treatments or research in which they are involved are progressing, especially with regard to informed consent procedures. We aimed to design a multisource informed consent procedure that is easily adaptable to both clinical and research applications, and to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of understanding and awareness, even in less educated patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
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 30 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,274,954
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#807
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,412
of 198,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 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 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 198,188 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.