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 |
General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-12-116 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanne N Heje, Peter Vedsted, Frede Olesen |
| Abstract |
It has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 31% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Psychology | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 July 2012.
All research outputs
#3,608,374
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#503
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,706
of 153,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#6
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 153,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.