You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by healthcare practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports , September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000074 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natalie K Bradford |
| Abstract |
In a 2004 discussion paper, the WHO asked if universal access to health information could be achieved by 2015, on the premise that limited access to information was a major obstacle to knowledge-based healthcare in both developing and industrialized countries. There is unquestionably a large volume of electronic health information available to healthcare practitioners, and there is evidence to suggest that the application of health information to patient care may improve patient and clinical outcomes. Despite this abundance of information, suboptimal care is common; thus it is important to determine how to encourage practitioners to use electronic health information to inform patient care. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Librarian | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 25% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#346
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,795
of 348,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 348,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.