↓ Skip to main content

Nurses and Twitter: The good, the bad, and the reluctant

Overview of attention for article published in Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 674)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
139 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
119 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.
Article details
Title
Nurses and Twitter: The good, the bad, and the reluctant
Published in
Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., June 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.colegn.2013.09.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Nurses and other health professionals are adopting social media to network with health care professionals and organizations, support health education, deliver health promotion messages, enhance professional development and employment opportunities, and communicate within political forums. This paper explores the growing use of social media, and examines the current dynamics of Twitter as an example of the uptake of social media. This paper also offers practical guidance for new Twitter users who are interested in using this social media approach in clinical or educational settings, and for professional development.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 106 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 36 30%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 24%
Social Sciences 18 15%
Computer Science 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 24 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 30 August 2022.
All research outputs
#545,903
of 34,331,336 outputs
Outputs from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#2
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,939
of 273,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,331,336 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 273,849 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them