| Title |
Establishing best practices in cancer online support groups: protocol for a realist review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, November 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053916 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacqueline L Bender, Stephanie Babinski, Geoff Wong, Andrea C Tricco, Marina Englesakis, Alaina B Cyr, Henry Potts, Olga Perski, Mary Jane Esplen, Colleen Young, Richard Wassersug, Victoria Forster, Janet Papadakos, Charlene Soobiah, Colleen Fox, Alison Gothard-Huang, Holly Witteman |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 54% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,370,250
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#4,572
of 25,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,395
of 444,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#129
of 894 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 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 25,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 444,085 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 894 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.