| Title |
Provider Perceptions of the Electronic Health Record Incentive Programs: A Survey of Eligible Professionals Who Have and Have Not Attested to Meaningful Use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-3008-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas L. Weeks, Benjamin J. Keeney, Peggy C. Evans, Quincy D. Moore, Douglas A. Conrad |
| Abstract |
The HITECH Act of 2009 enabled the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide financial incentives to health care providers who demonstrate "meaningful use" (MU) of their electronic health records (EHRs). Despite stakeholder involvement in the rule-making phase, formal input about the MU program from a cross section of providers has not been reported since incentive payments began. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 72 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,057
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,197
of 239,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#68
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 239,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.