| Title |
A structured process to develop scenarios for use in evaluation of an evidence-based approach in clinical decision making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s37510 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patricia J Manns, Johanna Darrah |
| Abstract |
Scenarios are used as the basis from which to evaluate the use of the components of evidence-based practice in decision making, yet there are few examples of a standardized process of scenario writing. The aim of this paper is to describe a step-by-step scenario writing method used in the context of the authors' curriculum research study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Czechia | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 November 2012.
All research outputs
#16,991,104
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,637
of 203,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 203,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them