↓ Skip to main content

Clinical guidelines contribute to the health inequities experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Clinical guidelines contribute to the health inequities experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay AM Mizen, Marjorie L Macfie, Linda Findlay, Sally-Ann Cooper, Craig A Melville

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are developed to improve the quality of healthcare. However, clinical guidelines may contribute to health inequities experienced by disadvantaged groups. This study uses an equity lens developed by the International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN) to examine how well clinical guidelines address inequities experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Other 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 45%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,581,208
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#822
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,230
of 177,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 177,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 63% of its contemporaries.