| Title |
A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2019
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s201401 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas G Poder, Marion Beffarat, Maria Benkhalti, Ginette Ladouceur, Pierre Dagenais |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 10 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 13% |
| United States | 6 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Finland | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 45 | 67% |
| Scientists | 14 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,033,792
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#45
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,764
of 363,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 363,722 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.