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 |
A Global Health Research Checklist for clinicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12245-018-0176-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rasha D. Sawaya, Kristen A. Breslin, Eiman Abdulrahman, Jennifer I. Chapman, Dafina M. Good, Lili Moran, Paul C. Mullan, Oluwakemi Badaki-Makun |
| Abstract |
Global health research has become a priority in most international medical projects. However, it is a difficult endeavor, especially for a busy clinician. Navigating the ethics, methods, and local partnerships is essential yet daunting.To date, there are no guidelines published to help clinicians initiate and complete successful global health research projects. This Global Health Research Checklist was developed to be used by clinicians or other health professionals for developing, implementing, and completing a successful research project in an international and often low-resource setting. It consists of five sections: Objective, Methodology, Institutional Review Board and Ethics, Culture and partnerships, and Logistics. We used individual experiences and published literature to develop and emphasize the key concepts. The checklist was trialed in two workshops and adjusted based on participants' feedback. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| South Africa | 1 | 14% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 23% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 36% |
| Psychology | 2 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,110,375
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#192
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,567
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 327,380 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 65% of its contemporaries.