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 |
Protocol for the process evaluation of a complex intervention designed to increase the use of research in health policy and program organisations (the SPIRIT study)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0113-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abby Haynes, Sue Brennan, Stacy Carter, Denise O'Connor, Carmen Huckel Schneider, Tari Turner, Gisselle Gallego, the CIPHER team |
| Abstract |
Process evaluation is vital for understanding how interventions function in different settings, including if and why they have different effects or do not work at all. This is particularly important in trials of complex interventions in 'real world' organisational settings where causality is difficult to determine. Complexity presents challenges for process evaluation, and process evaluations that tackle complexity are rarely reported. This paper presents the detailed protocol for a process evaluation embedded in a randomised trial of a complex intervention known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial). SPIRIT aims to build capacity for using research in health policy and program agencies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 167 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 16% |
| Researcher | 23 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 40 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 29 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 15% |
| Psychology | 14 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 49 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,558,031
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,494
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,392
of 253,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#48
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 253,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.