↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based care of older people with suspected cognitive impairment in general practice: protocol for the IRIS cluster randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Evidence-based care of older people with suspected cognitive impairment in general practice: protocol for the IRIS cluster randomised trial
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-91
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne E McKenzie, Simon D French, Denise A O’Connor, Duncan S Mortimer, Colette J Browning, Grant M Russell, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Martin P Eccles, Jill J Francis, Susan Michie, Kerry Murphy, Fiona Kossenas, Sally E Green, IRIS trial group

Abstract

Dementia is a common and complex condition. Evidence-based guidelines for the management of people with dementia in general practice exist; however, detection, diagnosis and disclosure of dementia have been identified as potential evidence-practice gaps. Interventions to implement guidelines into practice have had varying success. The use of theory in designing implementation interventions has been limited, but is advocated because of its potential to yield more effective interventions and aid understanding of factors modifying the magnitude of intervention effects across trials. This protocol describes methods of a randomised trial that tests a theory-informed implementation intervention that, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with dementia and their carers.

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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 7 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 43 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,280,625
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,442
of 198,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 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 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 198,426 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.