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 |
Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: a mixed methods program evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0135-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna Patricia Manca, Kris Aubrey-Bassler, Kami Kandola, Carolina Aguilar, Denise Campbell-Scherer, Nicolette Sopcak, Mary Ann O'Brien, Christopher Meaney, Vee Faria, Julia Baxter, Rahim Moineddin, Ginetta Salvalaggio, Lee Green, Andrew Cave, Eva Grunfeld |
| Abstract |
The objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 30 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 12% |
| Psychology | 10 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 22% |
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 03 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,446,748
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,246
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,044
of 255,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 255,128 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.