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 |
“Entrenched practices and other biases”: unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0211-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theresa Montini, Ian D Graham |
| Abstract |
In their article on "Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices," Prasad and Ioannidis (IS 9:1, 2014) referred to extra-scientific "entrenched practices and other biases" that hinder evidence-based de-implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 9 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 14% |
| Australia | 3 | 9% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 49% |
| Scientists | 14 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Psychology | 12 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,701,934
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#307
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,757
of 370,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 370,167 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.