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 |
Organizational impact of evidence-informed decision making training initiatives: a case study comparison of two approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
François Champagne, Louise Lemieux-Charles, Marie-France Duranceau, Gail MacKean, Trish Reay |
| Abstract |
The impact of efforts by healthcare organizations to enhance the use of evidence to improve organizational processes through training programs has seldom been assessed. We therefore endeavored to assess whether and how the training of mid- and senior-level healthcare managers could lead to organizational change. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Costa Rica | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 112 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 25 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 May 2014.
All research outputs
#7,848,504
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,228
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,353
of 234,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 234,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.