↓ Skip to main content

‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francine Toye, Kate Seers, Nick Allcock, Michelle Briggs, Eloise Carr, JoyAnn Andrews, Karen Barker

Abstract

Studies that systematically search for and synthesise qualitative research are becoming more evident in health care, and they can make an important contribution to patient care. However, there is still no agreement as to whether, or how we should appraise studies for inclusion. We aimed to explore the intuitive processes that determined the 'quality' of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative research syntheses. We were particularly interested to explore the way that knowledge was constructed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 5%
Australia 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 85 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 26%
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Social Sciences 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Psychology 11 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 13 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,213,288
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#192
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,693
of 143,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 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 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 143,365 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.