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 |
‘Doing the hard yards’: carer and provider focus group perspectives of accessing Aboriginal childhood disability services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-326 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle DiGiacomo, Patricia Delaney, Penelope Abbott, Patricia M Davidson, Joanne Delaney, Frank Vincent |
| Abstract |
Despite a high prevalence of disability, Aboriginal Australians access disability services in Australia less than non-Aboriginal Australians with a disability. The needs of Aboriginal children with disability are particularly poorly understood. They can endure long delays in treatment which can impact adversely on development. This study sought to ascertain the factors involved in accessing services and support for Aboriginal children with a disability. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 21 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 29% |
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 01 September 2013.
All research outputs
#14,175,799
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,045
of 7,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,553
of 198,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#64
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 198,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.