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 |
Reporting guidelines for realist evaluations seek to improve clarity and transparency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0658-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vivian A. Welch, Andrea C. Tricco |
| Abstract |
An increasing number of realist evaluations are being conducted from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and with diverse, fit-for-purpose methods. This commentary discusses the recent BMC Medicine publication of RAMESES II reporting guidelines for realist evaluations. Knowledge users such as program implementers and decision-makers will benefit from the increased transparency of reporting and interpretation in light of the totality of evidence encouraged by this guidance. It is hoped that these reporting guidelines will eventually lead to improved knowledge synthesis and contribute to the cumulative science regarding realist evaluation.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 | 10 | 32% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| India | 2 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Senegal | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 52% |
| Scientists | 11 | 35% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,819,302
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,255
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,207
of 366,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 366,873 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.