↓ Skip to main content

How can continuing professional development better promote shared decision-making? Perspectives from an international collaboration

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
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
How can continuing professional development better promote shared decision-making? Perspectives from an international collaboration
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-68
Pubmed ID
Authors

France Légaré, Hilary Bekker, Sophie Desroches, Renée Drolet, Mary C Politi, Dawn Stacey, Francine Borduas, Francine M Cheater, Jacques Cornuz, Marie-France Coutu, Nora Ferdjaoui-Moumjid, Frances Griffiths, Martin Härter, André Jacques, Tanja Krones, Michel Labrecque, Claire Neely, Charo Rodriguez, Joan Sargeant, Janet S Schuerman, Mark D Sullivan

Abstract

Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in healthcare. We aimed to set a research agenda about promoting shared decision-making through continuing professional development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 71 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Professor 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 26 34%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Social Sciences 15 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Computer Science 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 November 2013.
All research outputs
#14,595,884
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,523
of 1,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,828
of 116,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 116,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.