| Title |
Development of ClickClinica: a novel smartphone application to generate real-time global disease surveillance and clinical practice data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-70 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benedict Daniel Michael, David Geleta |
| Abstract |
Identification and tracking of important communicable diseases is pivotal to our understanding of the geographical distribution of disease, the emergence and spread of novel and resistant infections, and are of particular importance for public health policy planning. Moreover, understanding of current clinical practice norms is essential to audit clinical care, identify areas of concern, and develop interventions to improve care quality.However, there are several barriers to obtaining these research data. For example current disease surveillance mechanisms make it difficult for the busy doctor to know which diseases to notify, to whom and how, and are also time consuming. Consequently, many cases go un-notified. In addition assessments of current clinical practice are typically limited to small retrospective audits in individual hospitals.Therefore, we developed a free smartphone application to try to increase the identification of major infectious diseases and other acute medical presentations and improve our understanding of clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 25% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 139 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 36 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#7,174,980
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#680
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,740
of 196,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 196,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 55% of its contemporaries.