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 and psychometric properties of a questionnaire to assess barriers to feeding critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-8-140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naomi E Cahill, Andrew G Day, Deborah Cook, Daren K Heyland |
| Abstract |
To successfully implement the recommendations of critical care nutrition guidelines, one potential approach is to identify barriers to providing optimal enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and then address these barriers systematically. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to assess barriers to enterally feeding critically ill patients and to conduct preliminary validity testing of the new instrument. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 24% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 22% |
| Psychology | 6 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,714,075
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,129
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,658
of 306,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 306,889 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 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.