↓ Skip to main content

Supporting collaborative use of the diabetes population risk tool (DPoRT) in health-related practice: a multiple case study research protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
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
Supporting collaborative use of the diabetes population risk tool (DPoRT) in health-related practice: a multiple case study research protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Rosella, Leslea Peirson, Catherine Bornbaum, Kathy Kotnowski, Michael Lebenbaum, Randy Fransoo, Patricia Martens, Patricia Caetano, Carla Ens, Charles Gardner, David Mowat, for the DPoRT knowledge-to-action team

Abstract

Health policy makers have stated that diabetes prevention is a priority; however, the type, intensity, and target of interventions or policy changes that will achieve the greatest impact remains uncertain. In response to this uncertainty, the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) was developed and validated to estimate future diabetes risk based on routinely collected population data. To facilitate use of DPoRT, we partnered with regional and provincial health-related decision makers in Ontario and Manitoba, Canada. Primary objectives include: i) evaluate the effectiveness of partnerships between the research team and DPoRT users; ii) explore strategies that facilitate uptake and overcome barriers to DPoRT use; and iii) implement and evaluate the knowledge translation approach.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 13 16%
Librarian 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Psychology 6 8%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 April 2014.
All research outputs
#13,405,680
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,413
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,818
of 223,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 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 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 223,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.