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 |
Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-015-0129-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet Jull, Audrey Giles, Yvonne Boyer, Dawn Stacey |
| Abstract |
Shared decision making (SDM) may narrow health equity gaps experienced by Aboriginal women. SDM tools such as patient decision aids can facilitate SDM between the client and health care providers; SDM tools for use in Western health care settings have not yet been developed for and with Aboriginal populations. This study describes the adaptation and usability testing of a SDM tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide (OPDG), to support decision making by Aboriginal women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
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 04 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,211,818
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,100
of 1,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,544
of 352,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 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 1,986 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 352,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.