| Title |
Referral of patients to diabetes prevention programmes from community campaigns and general practices: mixed-method evaluation using the RE-AIM framework and Normalisation Process Theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, May 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-019-4139-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Knowles, Sarah Cotterill, Nia Coupe, Michael Spence |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 | 19 | 39% |
| Australia | 5 | 10% |
| Ireland | 4 | 8% |
| United States | 3 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 47% |
| Scientists | 20 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 117 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 24 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,418,327
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#429
of 8,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,752
of 365,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 365,241 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.