↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence‐based nursing practice

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence‐based nursing practice
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002212.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerd Flodgren, Maria Ximena Rojas‐Reyes, Nick Cole, David R Foxcroft

Abstract

Nurses and midwives form the bulk of the clinical health workforce and play a central role in all health service delivery. There is potential to improve health care quality if nurses routinely use the best available evidence in their clinical practice. Since many of the factors perceived by nurses as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) lie at the organisational level, it is of interest to devise and assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures designed to promote EBP among nurses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 200 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 69 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 54 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 21%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 75 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,401,150
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,678
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,905
of 258,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 258,526 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 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 51% of its contemporaries.