| Title |
Trends in Telehealth versus On‐site Clinical Genetics Appointments in Manitoba: A Comparative Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-011-9406-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison M. Elliott, Aizeddin A. Mhanni, Sandra L. Marles, Cheryl R. Greenberg, Albert E. Chudley, Gwendolyne C. Nyhof, Bernard N. Chodirker |
| Abstract |
Telehealth involves the use of information and communications technology to deliver health services to patients over distance. Canada is well suited to benefit from telehealth since many individuals live in remote, rural and isolated locations. Manitoba is the easternmost prairie province and MBTelehealth is an active Canadian program that currently has 105 sites in 73 communities. Although studies of patient satisfaction comparing telehealth to on-site clinical visits have been conducted, a comparative study of the types of genetics patients seen via these two modalities has not been performed previously. In this study we: (1) examined the uptake of telehealth in Genetics in Manitoba; (2) contrasted telehealth usage in Genetics with other clinical programs; and (3) performed a comparative study of the types of Genetics referrals seen in 2008 on-site versus via telehealth. Results indicate the uptake of telehealth is increasing and has made genetics outreach clinics unnecessary. The Program of Genetics and Metabolism is consistently one of the top ten utilizers of telehealth within the province. With respect to discipline, chi square analysis revealed the trends were not significantly different for on-site and telehealth encounters, with prenatal referrals being the most common and Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer referrals being the least common. Referrals within each discipline varied depending on the need for fetal assessment and physical examination. Telehealth was utilized regularly for test results sessions across all disciplines. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,581,538
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#274
of 1,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,599
of 136,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 136,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.