↓ Skip to main content

Developing a checklist for research proposals to help describe health service interventions in UK research programmes: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Developing a checklist for research proposals to help describe health service interventions in UK research programmes: a mixed methods study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-12-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Dorling, Donna White, Sheila Turner, Kevin Campbell, Tara Lamont

Abstract

One of the most common reasons for rejecting research proposals in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme is the failure to adequately specify the intervention or context in research proposals. Examples of failed research proposals include projects to assess integrated care models, use of generic caseworkers, or new specialist nurse services. These are all important service developments which need evaluation, but the lack of clarity about the intervention and context prevented these research proposals from obtaining funding. The purpose of the research presented herein was to develop a checklist, with key service intervention and contextual features, for use by applicants to the NIHR HS&DR Programme to potentially enhance the quality of research proposals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 4%
Indonesia 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 89 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 7 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#1,255,658
of 23,604,080 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#127
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,093
of 222,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,604,080 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 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 222,215 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.