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 |
The Do-Well study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic and qualitative process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socio-economically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-382 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine Haighton, Suzanne Moffatt, Denise Howel, Elaine McColl, Eugene Milne, Mark Deverill, Greg Rubin, Terry Aspray, Martin White |
| Abstract |
Older people in poor health are more likely to need extra money, aids and adaptations to allow them to remain independent and cope with ill health, yet in the UK many do not claim the welfare benefits to which they are entitled. Welfare rights advice interventions lead to greater welfare income, but have not been rigorously evaluated for health benefits. This study will evaluate the effects on health and well-being of a domiciliary welfare rights advice service provided by local government or voluntary organisations in North East England for independent living, socio-economically disadvantaged older people (aged ≥60 yrs), recruited from general (primary care) practices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Haiti | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 199 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 15% |
| Researcher | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 44 | 21% |
| Unknown | 51 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 11% |
| Psychology | 20 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 9% |
| Unknown | 59 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 30 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,799,704
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,983
of 14,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,739
of 165,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#17
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 165,043 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 92% of its contemporaries.