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 |
Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-4-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Glyn Elwyn, Dominick Frosch, Stephen Rollnick |
| Abstract |
There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorize patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| Australia | 2 | 22% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 168 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 17% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 34% |
| Psychology | 27 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,229,848
of 23,270,775 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#496
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,784
of 167,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,270,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 167,842 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 93% 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 6 of them.