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 |
A systematic review of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by philanthropists when determining which charities (including health charities or programmes) to fund
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-020-01448-w |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Greenhalgh, Paul Montgomery |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 20% |
| United States | 4 | 16% |
| Canada | 3 | 12% |
| South Africa | 2 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 64% |
| Scientists | 7 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,354,162
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#189
of 2,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,167
of 426,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 426,335 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 91% of its contemporaries.