↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines for using electronic and social media: the regulatory perspective.

Overview of attention for article published in Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 152)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Guidelines for using electronic and social media: the regulatory perspective.
Published in
Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, September 2012
DOI 10.3912/ojin.vol17no03man01
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy Spector, Dawn M Kappel

Abstract

Social media can be a very effective way of communicating in nursing, but guidelines for appropriate use by healthcare providers are essential. This article briefly introduces the phenomenon of social media and introduces three actual scenarios where nurses unintentionally violated appropriate use of social media in healthcare. The scenarios are discussed related to social media, career, concerns, and nursing regulation. Incorporating these and other examples with data from board of nursing cases, the nature of complaints against nurses is explored as well as common myths and misunderstandings about using social media platforms. Guidelines for appropriate use by nurses and available resources to inform policy are highlighted. Next steps in social media in nursing should include development of organizational level policies and educational programs on the use of social media.

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 16 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Turkey 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 91 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 17%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 December 2012.
All research outputs
#4,587,472
of 34,365,356 outputs
Outputs from Online Journal of Issues in Nursing
#18
of 152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,089
of 229,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Online Journal of Issues in Nursing
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,365,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 229,294 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.