↓ Skip to main content

Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2007
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2007
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-2-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Michie, Jessica Berentson-Shaw, Stephen Pilling, Gene Feder, Paul Dieppe, Rosalind Raine, Francoise Cluzeau, Phil Alderson, Simon Ellis

Abstract

Health care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature on evidence synthesis and implementation, but little on how guideline development groups (GDGs) produce recommendations. This is a complex process, with many influences on communication and decision-making, e.g., the quality of evidence, methods of presentation, practical/resource constraints, individual values, professional and scientific interests, social and psychological processes. To make this process more transparent and potentially effective, we need to understand these influences. Psychological theories of decision-making and social influence provide a framework for this understanding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Researcher 8 19%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 37%
Psychology 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,124,718
of 20,850,533 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#541
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,919
of 147,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,850,533 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 147,391 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them