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 |
Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-24 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah J Drabble, Alicia O’Cathain, Kate J Thomas, Anne Rudolph, Jenny Hewison |
| Abstract |
There is growing recognition of the value of conducting qualitative research with trials in health research. It is timely to reflect on how this qualitative research is presented in grant proposals to identify lessons for researchers and research commissioners. As part of a larger study focusing on how to maximise the value of undertaking qualitative research with trials, we undertook a documentary analysis of proposals of funded studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 23 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Psychology | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,403,925
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,280
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,408
of 223,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 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 223,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.