| Title |
Do smartphone applications in healthcare require a governance and legal framework? It depends on the application!
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-29 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esmita Charani, Enrique Castro-Sánchez, Luke SP Moore, Alison Holmes |
| Abstract |
The fast pace of technological improvement and the rapid development and adoption of healthcare applications present crucial challenges for clinicians, users and policy makers. Some of the most pressing dilemmas include the need to ensure the safety of applications and establish their cost-effectiveness while engaging patients and users to optimize their integration into health decision-making. Healthcare organizations need to consider the risk of fragmenting clinical practice within the organization as a result of too many apps being developed or used, as well as mechanisms for app integration into the wider electronic health records through development of governance framework for their use. The impact of app use on the interactions between clinicians and patients needs to be explored, together with the skills required for both groups to benefit from the use of apps. Although healthcare and academic institutions should support the improvements offered by technological advances, they must strive to do so within robust governance frameworks, after sound evaluation of clinical outcomes and examination of potential unintended consequences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 Kingdom | 10 | 30% |
| Spain | 4 | 12% |
| United States | 4 | 12% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 18% |
| Scientists | 4 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 268 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 71 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 14% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 60 | 21% |
| Unknown | 34 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 33 | 12% |
| Psychology | 25 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 62 | 22% |
| Unknown | 44 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 17 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,325,789
of 25,959,914 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#915
of 4,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,131
of 336,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#11
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,959,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 336,215 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.