↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effectiveness of staffing models in residential, subacute, extended aged care settings on patient and staff outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Effectiveness of staffing models in residential, subacute, extended aged care settings on patient and staff outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006563.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brent Hodgkinson, Emily J Haesler, Rhonda Nay, Megan H O'Donnell, Linda P McAuliffe

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 163 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 16%
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Librarian 10 6%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 20%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 41 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,647,362
of 21,321,610 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,611
of 12,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,067
of 280,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.