The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Mobile phone‐based interventions for improving contraception use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011159.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Smith, Judy Gold, Thoai D Ngo, Colin Sumpter, Caroline Free |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| Spain | 2 | 17% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 509 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 502 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 104 | 20% |
| Researcher | 67 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 5% |
| Other | 66 | 13% |
| Unknown | 144 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 125 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 60 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 40 | 8% |
| Psychology | 33 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 3% |
| Other | 75 | 15% |
| Unknown | 160 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 15 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,716,523
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,487
of 13,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,270
of 279,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 279,053 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 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 73% of its contemporaries.