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 |
Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program: a process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa B Gilkey, Jennifer L Moss, Alyssa J Roberts, Amanda M Dayton, Amy H Grimshaw, Noel T Brewer |
| Abstract |
Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
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 23 February 2014.
All research outputs
#6,086,627
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,050
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,571
of 223,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#22
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 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 223,888 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.