↓ Skip to main content

Poor numeracy skills in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Australasia, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Poor numeracy skills in the emergency department
Published in
Emergency Medicine Australasia, April 2014
DOI 10.1111/1742-6723.12207
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Eley, Michael Sinnott, Vicki Steinle, Leeanne Trenning, Mary Boyde, Goce Dimeski

Abstract

Substantial evidence exists for lack of numerical skills among many health professionals. Although poor numeracy has long been recognised as a contributor to medication error, other activities for which numerical literacy are required, such as interpretation of diagnostic results, have been largely ignored. Poor self-awareness of lack of numerical literacy increases the risk, especially in the busy and hurried emergency environment. System changes, such as standardising units and improving number presentation, reduce the potential for misinterpretation; however system changes do not address the underlying deficiencies in mathematical skills. The training of doctors in numeracy has been largely ignored. In contrast, education for nurses frequently occurs during both pre- and post-registration programmes. Interventions have had mixed success, although additional emphasis in increasing conceptual understanding of numbers is encouraging. The consequences of poor numerical literacy should be addressed in all clinical staff, not only by practice change to remove the potential for errors to be made, but also complemented by self-awareness and education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Librarian 5 10%
Lecturer 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Mathematics 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,681,601
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#613
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,495
of 242,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Australasia
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 242,301 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.