| Title |
Health information technology capacity at federally qualified health centers: a mechanism for improving quality of care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-35 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jemima A Frimpong, Bradford E Jackson, LaShonda M Stewart, Karan P Singh, Patrick A Rivers, Sejong Bae |
| Abstract |
The adoption of health information technology has been recommended as a viable mechanism for improving quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, the capacity of health information technology (i.e., availability and use of multiple and advanced functionalities), particularly in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) on improving quality of care is not well understood. We examined associations between health information technology (HIT) capacity at FQHCs and quality of care, measured by the receipt of discharge summary, frequency of patients receiving reminders/notifications for preventive care/follow-up care, and timely appointment for specialty care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 71% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 93% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Botswana | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 17% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,390,712
of 25,109,675 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#958
of 8,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,807
of 294,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#10
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 294,999 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 91% of its contemporaries.