| Title |
A systematic review of the individual determinants of research evidence use in allied health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jmdh.s23144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucylynn Lizarondo, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Saravana Kumar |
| Abstract |
The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) is often not reflected in allied health (AH) practitioners' day-to-day practice (the research-practice gap). Research suggests that considerable differences between and within AH disciplines exist, which require different approaches in order to influence practice behavior. It is therefore important to develop a better understanding of what influences individual AH practitioners' adoption of evidence into daily practice. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Israel | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 19% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#900
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,912
of 127,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 127,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.