| Title |
Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review: a qualitative interview study in UK primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp19x701321 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Polly Duncan, Christie Cabral, Deborah McCahon, Bruce Guthrie, Matthew J Ridd |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 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 | 64 | 42% |
| Spain | 17 | 11% |
| Australia | 5 | 3% |
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| El Salvador | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 48 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 105 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 15% |
| Scientists | 20 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 39 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 44 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#349,300
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#133
of 4,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,183
of 458,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#4
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 458,572 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 96% of its contemporaries.