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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Healthcare provider attitudes towards the problem list in an electronic health record: a mixed-methods qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-127 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Casey Holmes, Michael Brown, Daniel St Hilaire, Adam Wright |
| Abstract |
The problem list is a key part of the electronic health record (EHR) that allows practitioners to see a patient's diagnoses and health issues. Yet, as the content of the problem list largely represents the subjective decisions of those who edit it, patients' problem lists are often unreliable when shared across practitioners. The lack of standards for how the problem list is compiled in the EHR limits its effectiveness in improving patient care, particularly as a resource for clinical decision support and population management tools. The purpose of this study is to discover practitioner opinions towards the problem list and the logic behind their decisions during clinical situations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Austria | 2 | 15% |
| India | 2 | 15% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 43% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,769,129
of 24,833,726 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#197
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,936
of 184,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,833,726 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 184,737 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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.