| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 177 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 | 91 | 51% |
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Ireland | 2 | 1% |
| Chile | 2 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 64 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 102 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 37 | 21% |
| Scientists | 34 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 397 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 12% |
| Researcher | 37 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 69 | 17% |
| Unknown | 141 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 11% |
| Psychology | 22 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 49 | 12% |
| Unknown | 144 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. 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 08 June 2023.
All research outputs
#227,461
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#81
of 4,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,371
of 364,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 115 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 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. 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 364,878 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 115 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 97% of its contemporaries.