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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How the psychosocial context of clinical trials differs from usual care: A qualitative study of acupuncture patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-79 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona Barlow, Clare Scott, Beverly Coghlan, Philippa Lee, Peter White, George T Lewith, Felicity L Bishop |
| Abstract |
Qualitative studies of participants' experiences in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that the psychosocial context of treatment in RCTs may be quite different to the psychosocial context of treatment in usual practice. This is important, as the psychosocial context of treatment is known to influence patient outcomes in chronic illness. Few studies have directly compared the psychosocial context of treatment across RCTs and usual practice. In this study, we explored differences in psychosocial context between RCT and usual practice settings, using acupuncture as our model. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,598,731
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#551
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,743
of 112,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 112,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.