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 |
Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-4-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel L Shaw, Andrew Booth, Alex J Sutton, Tina Miller, Jonathan A Smith, Bridget Young, David R Jones, Mary Dixon-Woods |
| Abstract |
Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 4 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| South Africa | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 337 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 84 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 15% |
| Researcher | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 86 | 23% |
| Unknown | 56 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 67 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 12% |
| Psychology | 36 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 59 | 16% |
| Unknown | 73 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,476,262
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#712
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,119
of 57,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 57,533 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.