↓ Skip to main content

Maximising response to postal questionnaires – A systematic review of randomised trials in health research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2006
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
239 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Maximising response to postal questionnaires – A systematic review of randomised trials in health research
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A Nakash, Jane L Hutton, Ellen C Jørstad-Stein, Simon Gates, Sarah E Lamb

Abstract

Postal self-completion questionnaires offer one of the least expensive modes of collecting patient based outcomes in health care research. The purpose of this review is to assess the efficacy of methods of increasing response to postal questionnaires in health care studies on patient populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 186 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 19%
Student > Master 36 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 41 21%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 37%
Psychology 24 12%
Social Sciences 18 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 34 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,891,484
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#486
of 1,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,801
of 239,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#33
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 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 1,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. 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 239,108 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 68% of its contemporaries.