| Title |
Building consensus about eHealth in Slovene primary health care: Delphi study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-11-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rade J Iljaž, Matic Meglič, Igor Švab |
| Abstract |
Slovenia's national eHealth strategy aims to develop an efficient, flexible and modern health care informatics framework that would be comparable to the most successful EU countries. To achieve this goal, the gap between availability and usage of information and communication technology by primary care physicians needs to be reduced.As recent efforts show, consensus on information and communication technology purpose and usage in primary care needs to be established before any national information and communication technology solutions are developed.The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate measures in implementation of Slovene national eHealth strategy and to suggest an appropriate model for success by using the three round Delphi study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Poland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 28% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 April 2012.
All research outputs
#13,662,605
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#964
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,955
of 111,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 2,027 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 111,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 64% of its contemporaries.