↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Exploring the understanding of evidence-based concepts in people with type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Exploring the understanding of evidence-based concepts in people with type 2 diabetes
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s36557
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tammy C Hoffmann, Chris B Del Mar

Abstract

Being able to make informed decisions is a prerequisite to enabling individuals to participate actively in their health care. In turn, an individual's understanding of relevant health information can influence his/her ability to make informed decisions. However, there are two broad categories of health information, ie, background information (such as the pathophysiology of conditions) and foreground information (such as disease behavior, prognosis, and effects of treatment). Questions about foreground information are central to evidence-based practice. The majority of health literacy research has focused on background information, yet foreground information is more useful in decision-making, particularly for evidence-informed decisions. In people with type 2 diabetes, we explored individuals' knowledge of selected evidence-based concepts in diabetes; beliefs about what they can do to manage their diabetes and sources of this information; and whether these change after diabetes education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Professor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Librarian 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 10 25%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 March 2013.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#597
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,257
of 188,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 188,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 54% of its contemporaries.