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 |
Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justin Presseau, Gillian Hawthorne, Falko F Sniehotta, Nick Steen, Jill J Francis, Marie Johnston, Joan Mackintosh, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Eileen Kaner, Marko Elovainio, Mark Deverill, Tom Coulthard, Heather Brown, Margaret Hunter, Martin P Eccles |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 33% |
| Canada | 3 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Austria | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 47% |
| Scientists | 6 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 232 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 54 | 23% |
| Unknown | 49 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 27% |
| Psychology | 24 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 22 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Unknown | 65 | 27% |
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 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,329,122
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#793
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,067
of 244,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 244,438 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 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.