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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Preferences for continuing education through existing electronic access for Australian Nurse Practitioners and its implication in prescribing potential
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., April 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.colegn.2008.10.001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Newman, Thomas Buckley, Sandra Dunn, Andrew Cashin |
| Abstract |
Little is known about Australian Nurse Practitioners (NPs) perceptions of the importance of continuing education (CE), their preferred methods to undertake CE in relation to prescribing practices or their access to electronic resources at work. Nurse Practitioner access to computerised technology may increase their provision of resources, provide point of care technology, and increase opportunities to participate in CE. This paper aims to explore Australian NP preferences for continuing education and NP access to electronic mediums that may increase CE opportunities. A self-administered online survey was completed by 68 NPs from across Australia. The majority of respondents (93%) viewed CE to be very important and preferred methods of continuing education included receipt of information by email, and interactive online case studies. Respondents working in metropolitan areas had increased access to high speed Internet in comparison to NPs working in rural or remote areas, although this did not reach statistical significance (88% vs. 69%, p = 0.07). Significantly more NPs working in metropolitan areas had access to a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) than NPs working in rural or remote areas (44% vs. 6%, p = 0.003). This is the first national survey to report preference for CE and access to technology of NPs in Australia. Electronic technology can provide programmed support such as online learning and resources through computers and PDAs to maximise NP prescribing potential. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
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 12 July 2020.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#296
of 643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,140
of 107,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 107,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.