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 |
A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in chronic conditions: a review protocol
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-38 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Michael R Gionfriddo, Aaron L Leppin, Juan P Brito, Annie LeBlanc, Kasey R Boehmer, Megan A Morris, Patricia J Erwin, Larry J Prokop, Claudia L Zeballos-Palacios, German Malaga, J Jaime Miranda, Heidi M McLeod, René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, Rongchong Huang, Oscar L Morey-Vargas, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Victor M Montori |
Abstract |
Chronic conditions are a major source of morbidity, mortality and cost worldwide. Shared decision making is one way to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. Although it has been widely studied, the effect of shared decision making in the context of chronic conditions is unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 3 | 38% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
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% |
Sweden | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 83 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 17 | 20% |
Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
Other | 5 | 6% |
Other | 16 | 19% |
Unknown | 8 | 9% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
Psychology | 8 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
Other | 11 | 13% |
Unknown | 14 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,836,158
of 25,037,495 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,259
of 2,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,557
of 232,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,037,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 232,500 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 55% of its contemporaries.