↓ Skip to main content

Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
97 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design
Published in
Trials, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13063-019-3710-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beth Parkinson, Rachel Meacock, Matt Sutton, Eleonora Fichera, Nicola Mills, Gillian W. Shorter, Shaun Treweek, Nicola L Harman, Rebecca C. H. Brown, Katie Gillies, Peter Bower

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 17 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 19 May 2021.
All research outputs
#446,510
of 18,863,398 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#74
of 4,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,079
of 338,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#9
of 604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,863,398 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 4,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 338,757 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 604 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 98% of its contemporaries.