↓ Skip to main content

Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0248-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Presseau, Noah M Ivers, James J Newham, Keegan Knittle, Kristin J Danko, Jeremy M Grimshaw

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Unknown 260 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 16%
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 15 6%
Other 47 18%
Unknown 71 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 12%
Social Sciences 20 8%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 83 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,415,440
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#239
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,331
of 281,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 281,856 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 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.