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 |
Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirk D Wyatt, Megan E Branda, Ryan T Anderson, Laurie J Pencille, Victor M Montori, Erik P Hess, Henry H Ting, Annie LeBlanc |
| Abstract |
To quantify the extent to which clinicians use clinically-efficacious decision aids as intended during implementation in practice and how fidelity to usage instructions correlates with shared decision making (SDM) outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 | 9 | 30% |
| Canada | 4 | 13% |
| United States | 3 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 43% |
| Scientists | 9 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 36% |
| Psychology | 14 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,495,356
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#261
of 1,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,674
of 232,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 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 1,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 232,568 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 93% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.