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 |
Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea C. Tricco, Roberta Cardoso, Sonia M. Thomas, Sanober Motiwala, Shannon Sullivan, Michael R. Kealey, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Mathieu Ouimet, Michael P. Hillmer, Laure Perrier, Sasha Shepperd, Sharon E. Straus |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 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 | 19 | 21% |
| Canada | 12 | 13% |
| United States | 9 | 10% |
| Australia | 6 | 7% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Iceland | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Egypt | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 34 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 54% |
| Scientists | 24 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 271 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Professor | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 66 | 24% |
| Unknown | 54 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 42 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 14% |
| Psychology | 11 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 51 | 18% |
| Unknown | 71 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#554,220
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#41
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,623
of 403,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 403,726 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.