| Title |
Feasibility and acceptability of e-PROMs data capture and feedback among patients receiving haemodialysis in the Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT) pilot: protocol for a qualitative study in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, November 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Duncanson, Paul N Bennett, Andrea Viecelli, Kathryn Dansie, William Handke, Allison Tong, Suetonia Palmer, Shilpanjali Jesudason, Stephen P McDonald, Rachael L Morton |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 50% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 54% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 56% |
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 06 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,707,890
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#8,540
of 25,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,894
of 440,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#283
of 909 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,599 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 440,083 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 909 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 68% of its contemporaries.