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 |
Presenting evidence-based health information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophie Hill, Graziella Filippini, Anneliese Synnot, Michael Summers, Deirdre Beecher, Cinzia Colombo, Paola Mosconi, Mario A Battaglia, Sue Shapland, Richard H Osborne, Melanie Hawkins |
| Abstract |
Increasingly, evidence-based health information, in particular evidence from systematic reviews, is being made available to lay audiences, in addition to health professionals. Research efforts have focused on different formats for the lay presentation of health information. However, there is a paucity of data on how patients integrate evidence-based health information with other factors such as their preferences for information and experiences with information-seeking. The aim of this project is to explore how people with multiple sclerosis (MS) integrate health information with their needs, experiences, preferences and values and how these factors can be incorporated into an online resource of evidence-based health information provision for people with MS and their families. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 54 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 31% |
| Psychology | 8 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
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 28 November 2013.
All research outputs
#15,242,707
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,305
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,283
of 158,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 158,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.