↓ Skip to main content

Implementing Internet-Based Aural Rehabilitation in a General Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Audiology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Implementing Internet-Based Aural Rehabilitation in a General Clinical Practice
Published in
American Journal of Audiology, September 2015
DOI 10.1044/2015_aja-15-0017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milijana Malmberg, Thomas Lunner, Kim Kähäri, Gunilla Jansson, Gerhard Andersson

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to share the lessons that were learned about the process of implementing an Internet-based, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in general clinical practice (GCP) and to address some of the advantages of using the Internet as a tool to implement a RCT in GCP. The RCT implemented focused on investigating Internet-based aural rehabilitation (AR) in addition to hearing aid (HA)-fitting supplemented with telephone support, and it was applied in a clinical setting. The results of this RCT and the questionnaires chosen will be presented in an article elsewhere. Here, the procedure of the implemented trial is presented, and the implementation challenges are presented and discussed. Specifically, we describe the trial research question, recruitment strategy, patient eligibility criteria, the questionnaires, clinician participation, funding and time (for the clinicians), and risks and benefits (for the participants). The trial implementation showed that AR in addition to HA-fitting can be carried out in GCP using the Internet. Using an Internet-based RCT overcomes some of the challenges of implementing a trial in GCP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 5 6%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Psychology 10 13%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,432,670
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Audiology
#347
of 845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,382
of 268,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Audiology
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 268,317 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 55% of its contemporaries.