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 |
The validation of a questionnaire to assess barriers to enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a multicenter international survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-197 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naomi E Cahill, Lauren Murch, Miao Wang, Andrew G Day, Deborah Cook, Daren K Heyland |
| Abstract |
A growing body of literature supports the need to identify and address barriers to knowledge use as a strategy to improve care delivery. To this end, we developed a questionnaire to assess barriers to enterally feeding critically ill adult patients, and sought to gain evidence to support the construct validity of this instrument by testing the hypothesis that barriers identified by the questionnaire are inversely associated with nutrition performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| El Salvador | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#13,176,295
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,443
of 7,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,863
of 227,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#57
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 227,857 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.