↓ Skip to main content

Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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.
Title
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007978.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Aziz Sheikh, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car

Abstract

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been demonstrated in health care this has included its use for communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals for clinical purposes, but the effects of using email in this way is not known.This review addresses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 200%
Student > Bachelor 2 100%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 100%
Student > Postgraduate 1 50%
Researcher 1 50%
Other 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 350%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 100%
Social Sciences 1 50%
Unspecified 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#491,264
of 12,982,601 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,563
of 10,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,603
of 142,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,982,601 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 10,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. 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 142,709 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.