↓ Skip to main content

Prospective memory in the ICU: the effect of visual cues on task execution in a representative simulation

Overview of attention for article published in Ergonomics, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
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.
Title
Prospective memory in the ICU: the effect of visual cues on task execution in a representative simulation
Published in
Ergonomics, March 2013
DOI 10.1080/00140139.2013.765604
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Grundgeiger, P. M. Sanderson, C. Beltran Orihuela, A. Thompson, H. G. MacDougall, L. Nunnink, B. Venkatesh

Abstract

Despite the potential dangers of clinical tasks being forgotten, few researchers have investigated prospective memory (PM) - the ability to remember to execute future tasks - in health-care contexts. Visual cues help people remember to execute intentions at the appropriate moment. Using an intensive care unit simulator, we investigated whether nurses' memory for future tasks improves when visual cues are present, and how nurses manage PM demands. Twenty-four nurses participated in a 40-minute scenario simulating the start of a morning shift. The scenario included eight PM tasks. The presence or absence of a visually conspicuous cue for each task was manipulated. The presence of a visual cue improved recall compared to no cue (64% vs. 50%, p = 0.03 one-tailed, η(p)(2) = 0.15). Nurses used deliberate reminders to manage their PM demands. PM in critical care might be supported by increasing the visibility of cues related to tasks.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 55 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 17%
Engineering 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Computer Science 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 18 30%
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 25 April 2013.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ergonomics
#1,785
of 2,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,168
of 210,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ergonomics
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 210,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.