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 |
Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: Examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Salla Atkins, Annika Launiala, Alexander Kagaha, Helen Smith |
| Abstract |
Health policy makers now have access to a greater number and variety of systematic reviews to inform different stages in the policy making process, including reviews of qualitative research. The inclusion of mixed methods studies in systematic reviews is increasing, but these studies pose particular challenges to methods of review. This article examines the quality of the reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Uganda | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 26% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Librarian | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
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 28 February 2013.
All research outputs
#13,533,039
of 23,934,148 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,252
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,045
of 164,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,934,148 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 164,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 50% of its contemporaries.