↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for participation and non-participation in a diabetes prevention trial among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Reasons for participation and non-participation in a diabetes prevention trial among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer J Infanti, Angela O’Dea, Irene Gibson, Brian E McGuire, John Newell, Liam G Glynn, Ciaran O’Neill, Susan B Connolly, Fidelma P Dunne

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle intervention can prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in high risk populations. We designed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of an established lifestyle intervention compared to standard care for delaying diabetes onset in European women with recent GDM. Recruitment into the RCT was more challenging than anticipated with only 89 of 410 (22%) women agreeing to participate. This paper identifies factors that could enhance participation of the target population in future interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 237 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 14%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 73 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Psychology 14 6%
Sports and Recreations 8 3%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 74 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,035,749
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#635
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,348
of 308,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 308,989 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.