↓ Skip to main content

Can the caged bird sing? Reflections on the application of qualitative research methods to case study design in homeopathic medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2004
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
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
Can the caged bird sing? Reflections on the application of qualitative research methods to case study design in homeopathic medicine
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2004
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-4-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trevor DB Thompson

Abstract

Two main pathways exist for the development of knowledge in clinical homeopathy. These comprise clinical trials conducted primarily by university-based researchers and cases reports and homeopathic "provings" compiled by engaged homeopathic practitioners. In this paper the relative merits of these methods are examined and a middle way proposed. This consists of the "Formal Case Study" (FCS) in which qualitative methods are used to increase the rigour and sophistication with which homeopathic cases are studied. Before going into design issues this paper places the FCS in an historical and academic context and describes the relative merits of the method.

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 6%
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
India 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 55 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 32%
Social Sciences 10 15%
Psychology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,728,166
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#595
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,518
of 132,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 132,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them