| Title |
Healthcare stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012876.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Xyrichis, Katerina Iliopoulou, Nicola J Mackintosh, Suzanne Bench, Marius Terblanche, Julia Philippou, Jane Sandall |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 Kingdom | 19 | 31% |
| India | 3 | 5% |
| Austria | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 55% |
| Scientists | 17 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 326 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 10% |
| Researcher | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 46 | 14% |
| Unknown | 162 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 2% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 41 | 13% |
| Unknown | 174 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 27 March 2022.
All research outputs
#970,572
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,909
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,556
of 456,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 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 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 456,239 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.