↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 3,367)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
190 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, July 2019
DOI 10.3399/bjgp19x704573
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Hammersley, Eddie Donaghy, Richard Parker, Hannah McNeilly, Helen Atherton, Annemieke Bikker, John Campbell, Brian McKinstry

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 190 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 21%
Researcher 10 16%
Other 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 7 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 177. 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 07 August 2020.
All research outputs
#103,582
of 15,638,780 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#37
of 3,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,842
of 263,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,638,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 263,598 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 112 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 98% of its contemporaries.