Title |
Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-162 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Erin Mathieu, Alexandra Barratt, Stacy M Carter, Gro Jamtvedt |
Abstract |
Use of the Internet to conduct randomised controlled trials is increasing, and provides potential to increase equity of access to medical research, increase the generalisability of trial results and decrease the costs involved in conducting large scale trials. Several studies have compared response rates, completeness of data, and reliability of surveys using the Internet and traditional methods, but very little is known about participants' attitudes towards Internet-based randomised trials or their experience of participating in an Internet-based trial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 6 | 46% |
Australia | 1 | 8% |
Belgium | 1 | 8% |
United States | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 1% |
Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 20 | 22% |
Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
Other | 9 | 10% |
Unknown | 22 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 25% |
Psychology | 13 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Other | 12 | 13% |
Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#4,199,733
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#668
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,664
of 185,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 185,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.