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 |
Effectiveness of two intensive treatment methods for smoking cessation and relapse prevention in patients with coronary heart disease: study protocol and baseline description
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2261-12-33 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nadine Berndt, Catherine Bolman, Lilian Lechner, Aart Mudde, Freek WA Verheugt, Hein de Vries |
| Abstract |
There is no more effective intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease than smoking cessation. Yet, evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment methods for cardiac inpatients that also suit nursing practice is scarce. This protocol describes the design of a study on the (cost-)effectiveness of two intensive smoking cessation interventions for hospitalised cardiac patients as well as first results on the inclusion rates and the characteristics of the study population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Psychology | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 44 | 37% |
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 16 May 2012.
All research outputs
#17,633,688
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1,034
of 1,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,495
of 163,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 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 1,588 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 163,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.