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 |
Effectiveness of management models for facilitating self-management and patient outcomes in adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0072-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward Zimbudzi, Clement Lo, Marie Misso, Sanjeeva Ranasinha, Sophia Zoungas |
| Abstract |
Self-management models can be a very powerful resource in the health system provided they are well tailored to a particular disease and setting. Patient outcomes have been demonstrated to improve when self-management practices are embedded in the care of people with certain diseases. However, it remains unclear whether self-management models and specific components of these programmes can be implemented in order to effectively improve the care of people with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease. Medline (including Medline in-process), Excerpta medica database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and all evidence-based medicine (EBM) will be systematically searched for randomised controlled studies comparing self-management models with usual care in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Two reviewers will independently assess articles for eligibility: extract data, evaluate risk of bias and complete quality assessment of included studies. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Meta-analyses will be performed if there is sufficient homogenous data. This protocol utilises rigorous methodology as well as pre-specified eligibility criteria to comprehensively search for diabetes and kidney disease self-management models which have been compared with usual care in randomised controlled trials. The review is likely to provide insight into the effectiveness of current models for improving patient self-management, and this may address the key translational issue of how to integrate and tailor these self-management practices for patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. PROSPERO CRD42015017316 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Ghana | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,634,907
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,329
of 1,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,014
of 266,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 266,634 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.