| Title |
Mind the Gap: Putting Evidence into Practice in the Era of Learning Health Systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4633-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeanne-Marie Guise, Lucy A. Savitz, Charles P. Friedman |
| Abstract |
Due to the increasing amount of available published evidence and the continual need to apply and update evidence in practice, we propose a shift in the way evidence generated by learning health systems can be integrated into more traditional evidence reviews. This paper discusses two main mechanisms to close the evidence-to-practice gap: (1) integrating Learning Health System (LHS) results with existing systematic review evidence and (2) providing this combined evidence in a standardized, computable data format. We believe these efforts will better inform practice, thereby improving individual and population health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 12 | 52% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 30% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#551,319
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#449
of 8,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,125
of 339,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#8
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 339,560 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.