| Title |
Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000072.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott Reeves, Ferruccio Pelone, Reema Harrison, Joanne Goldman, Merrick Zwarenstein |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 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 | 22 | 26% |
| United States | 9 | 10% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 44 | 51% |
| Scientists | 24 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,608 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1608 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 237 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 228 | 14% |
| Researcher | 97 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 86 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 74 | 5% |
| Other | 283 | 18% |
| Unknown | 603 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 400 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 273 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 62 | 4% |
| Psychology | 39 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 35 | 2% |
| Other | 152 | 9% |
| Unknown | 647 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#635,885
of 25,847,449 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,109
of 13,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,160
of 330,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,847,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 330,934 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.