↓ Skip to main content

Credentialing of Australian and New Zealand infection control professionals: An exploratory study

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Infection Control, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Credentialing of Australian and New Zealand infection control professionals: An exploratory study
Published in
American Journal of Infection Control, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.01.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborough MacBeth, Lisa Hall, Kate Halton, Anne Gardner, Brett G. Mitchell

Abstract

Despite evidence from overseas that certification and credentialing of infection control professionals (ICPs) is important to patient outcomes, there are no standardized requirements for the education and preparation of ICPs in Australia. A credentialing process (now managed by the Australasian College of Infection Prevention and Control) has been in existence since 2000; however, no evaluation has occurred. A cross-sectional study design was used to identify the perceived barriers to credentialing and the characteristics of credentialed ICPs. There were 300 responses received; 45 (15%) of participants were credentialed. Noncredentialed ICPs identified barriers to credentialing as no employer requirement and no associated remuneration. Generally credentialed ICPs were more likely to hold higher degrees and have more infection control experience than their noncredentialed colleagues. The credentialing process itself may assist in supporting ICP development by providing an opportunity for reflection and feedback from peer review. Further, the process may assist ICPs in being flexible and adaptable to the challenging and ever-changing environment that is infection control.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 26%
Lecturer 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,002,347
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Infection Control
#307
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,936
of 329,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Infection Control
#5
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 329,938 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 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 95% of its contemporaries.