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 |
Decision aids for respite service choices by carers of people with dementia: development and pilot RCT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Stirling, Susan Leggett, Barbara Lloyd, Jenn Scott, Leigh Blizzard, Stephen Quinn, Andrew Robinson |
| Abstract |
Decision aids are often used to assist individuals confronted with a diagnosis of a serious illness to make decisions about treatment options. However, they are rarely utilised to help those with chronic or age related conditions to make decisions about care services. Decision aids should also be useful for carers of people with decreased decisional capacity. These carers' choices must balance health outcomes for themselves and for salient others with relational and value-based concerns, while relying on information from health professionals. This paper reports on a study that both developed and pilot tested a decision aid aimed at assisting carers to make evaluative judgements of community services, particularly respite care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 22% |
| Psychology | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,128,816
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#941
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,997
of 159,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 159,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.