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 process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-101 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lou Atkins, Jonathan A Smith, Michael P Kelly, Susan Michie |
| Abstract |
There has been significant investment in developing guidelines to improve clinical and public health practice. Though much is known about the processes of evidence synthesis and evidence-based guidelines implementation, we know little about how evidence presented to advisory groups is interpreted and used to form practice recommendations or what happens where evidence is lacking. This study investigates how members of advisory groups of NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) conceptualize evidence and experience the process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 | 8 | 38% |
| Australia | 3 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 52% |
| Scientists | 5 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Professor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 17% |
| Psychology | 8 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,679,008
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#551
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,459
of 204,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 204,322 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.