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 |
Rationale, design, and implementation protocol of the Dutch clinical practice guideline Pain in patients with cancer: a cluster randomised controlled trial with short message service (SMS) and interactive voice response (IVR)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-6-126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nienke te Boveldt, Yvonne Engels, Kees Besse, Kris Vissers, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen |
| Abstract |
One-half of patients with cancer have pain. In nearly one out of two cancer patients with pain, this was undertreated. Inadequate pain control still remains an important problem in this group of patients. Therefore, in 2008 a national, evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline 'pain in patients with cancer' has been developed. Yet, publishing a guideline is not enough. Implementation is needed to improve pain management. An innovative implementation strategy, Short Message Service with Interactive Voice Response (SVS-IVR), has been developed and pilot tested. This study aims to evaluate on effectiveness of this strategy to improve pain reporting, pain measurement and adequate pain therapy. In addition, whether the active role of the patient and involvement of caregivers in pain management may change. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 26% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 25% |
| Psychology | 10 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 January 2012.
All research outputs
#17,653,992
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,621
of 1,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,413
of 240,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 240,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.