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 |
Development of a theory-based instrument to identify barriers and levers to best hand hygiene practice among healthcare practitioners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-111 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judith Dyson, Rebecca Lawton, Cath Jackson, Francine Cheater |
| Abstract |
A theoretical approach to assessing the barriers and levers to evidence-based practice (EBP) with subsequent tailoring of theoretically informed strategies to address these may go some way to positively influencing the delay in implementing research findings into practice. Hand hygiene is one such example of EBP, chosen for this study due to its importance in preventing death through healthcare associated infections (HCAI). The development of an instrument to assess barriers and levers to hand hygiene and to allow the subsequent tailoring of theoretically informed implementation strategies is reported here. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 19% |
| Researcher | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Psychology | 16 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,079,970
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,050
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,586
of 202,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 202,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.