Title |
Designing and evaluating a web-based self-management site for patients with type 2 diabetes - systematic website development and study protocol
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-57 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Catherine H Yu, Janet Parsons, Muhammad Mamdani, Gerald Lebovic, Baiju R Shah, Onil Bhattacharyya, Andreas Laupacis, Sharon E Straus |
Abstract |
Given that patients provide the majority of their own diabetes care, patient self-management training has increasingly become recognized as an important strategy with which to improve quality of care. However, participation in self management programs is low. In addition, the efficacy of current behavioural interventions wanes over time, reducing the impact of self-management interventions on patient health. Web-based interventions have the potential to bridge the gaps in diabetes care and self-management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 20% |
Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
Canada | 1 | 10% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
South Africa | 1 | 10% |
Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 7 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
Italy | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
Ghana | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | <1% |
Unknown | 261 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 20% |
Student > Master | 43 | 15% |
Researcher | 42 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 27 | 10% |
Other | 19 | 7% |
Other | 53 | 19% |
Unknown | 42 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 30% |
Computer Science | 28 | 10% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 10% |
Psychology | 24 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 23 | 8% |
Other | 43 | 15% |
Unknown | 53 | 19% |
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 19 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,927,479
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#338
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,339
of 164,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#11
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 164,528 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.