| Title |
Innovations in e-health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-013-0458-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Wicks, Jon Stamford, Martha A. Grootenhuis, Lotte Haverman, Sara Ahmed |
| Abstract |
The theme of ISOQOL's 19th Annual Conference in Budapest, Hungary, was The Journey of Quality of Life Research: A Path Towards Personalized Medicine. Innovations in e-health was one of four plenary panels. E-health is changing the landscape of clinical practice and health care, but the best way to leverage the many promised benefits of emerging e-health technologies is still not clear. The Innovations in e-health panel presented emerging changes in technologies and applications that will facilitate clinical decision making, improve quality and efficiency of care, engage individuals in clinical decision making, and empower them to adopt healthy behaviors. The purpose of this paper was to present emerging trends in e-health and considerations for successful adoption of new technologies, and an overview of each of the presentations in the e-health plenary. The presentations included a personal perspective on the use of technology for self-monitoring in Parkinson's disease, an overview of online social networks and emerging technologies, and the collection of patient-reported outcomes through web-based systems in clinical practice. The common thread across all the talks was the application of e-health tools to empower individuals with chronic disease to be actively engaged in the management of their health. Considerations regarding data ownership and privacy, universal access to e-health, interactivity between different types of e-health technologies, and tailoring applications to individual needs were explored. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 423 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 409 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 78 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 13% |
| Researcher | 50 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 68 | 16% |
| Unknown | 104 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 59 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 36 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 8% |
| Psychology | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 83 | 20% |
| Unknown | 121 | 29% |
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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#6,401,232
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#636
of 2,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,023
of 194,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,842 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 194,475 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 74% of its contemporaries.