↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness of Standardized Nursing Terminologies

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal Of Nursing Knowledge, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Usefulness of Standardized Nursing Terminologies
Published in
International Journal Of Nursing Knowledge, November 2015
DOI 10.1111/2047-3095.12123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Törnvall, Inger Jansson

Abstract

To examine the effects of using standardized terminologies in nursing. A systematic literature research was conducted in June 2015 going back to January 2007. A modified narrative synthesis was used as the structure for the analysis. Twenty-three articles were included. Three themes were identified: enable evaluation of nursing-sensitive outcome indicators, enable calculation of resource consumption, and characterize nursing care. The studies included in the analysis described evidence for usefulness rather than effect. In all the studies, standardized nursing terminology was found to be essential for measuring, clarifying, and understanding nursing care. The use of standardized terminologies could be advantageous. However, there are shortcomings in nursing documentation and the use of standardized nursing terminologies that obstruct evaluation of nursing care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Professor 10 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 44 63%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 18 26%
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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,784,344
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal Of Nursing Knowledge
#99
of 245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,412
of 393,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal Of Nursing Knowledge
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 393,195 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.