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 |
Cost-effectiveness of health-related lifestyle advice delivered by peer or lay advisors: synthesis of evidence from a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7547-11-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Pennington, Shelina Visram, Cam Donaldson, Martin White, Monique Lhussier, Katherine Deane, Natalie Forster, Susan M Carr |
| Abstract |
Development of new peer or lay health-related lifestyle advisor (HRLA) roles is one response to the need to enhance public engagement in, and improve cost-effectiveness of, health improvement interventions. This article synthesises evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HRLA interventions aimed at adults in developed countries, derived from the first systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different types of HRLA role. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 6 | 40% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 214 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 21% |
| Researcher | 29 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 12% |
| Librarian | 11 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 21% |
| Unknown | 50 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 11% |
| Psychology | 15 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 60 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,436,330
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#20
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,401
of 316,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 316,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.