| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 4 | 57% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 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 | 185 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 11% |
| Librarian | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 27% |
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,420,275
of 24,654,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,915
of 12,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,010
of 117,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,654,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 117,974 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 53% of its contemporaries.