| Title |
The use of regional platforms for managing electronic health records for the production of regional public health indicators in France
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-28 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marie-Hélène Metzger, Thierry Durand, Stéphane Lallich, Roger Salamon, Philippe Castets |
| Abstract |
In France, recent developments in healthcare system organization have aimed at strengthening decision-making and action in public health at the regional level. Firstly, the 2004 Public Health Act, by setting 100 national and regional public health targets, introduced an evaluative approach to public health programs at the national and regional levels. Meanwhile, the implementation of regional platforms for managing electronic health records (EHRs) has also been under assessment to coordinate the deployment of this important instrument of care within each geographic area. In this context, the development and implementation of a regional approach to epidemiological data extracted from EHRs are an opportunity that must be seized as soon as possible. Our article addresses certain design and organizational aspects so that the technical requirements for such use are integrated into regional platforms in France. The article will base itself on organization of the Rhône-Alpes regional health platform. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,616,437
of 24,833,726 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#389
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,820
of 165,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,833,726 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 165,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.