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 |
The role of organizational context and individual nurse characteristics in explaining variation in use of information technologies in evidence based practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-122 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diane Doran, Brian R Haynes, Carole A Estabrooks, André Kushniruk, Adam Dubrowski, Irmajean Bajnok, Linda McGillis Hall, Mingyang Li, Jennifer Carryer, Dawn Jedras, Yu Qing (Chris) Bai |
| Abstract |
There is growing awareness of the role of information technology in evidence-based practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of organizational context and nurse characteristics in explaining variation in nurses' use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) and mobile Tablet PCs for accessing evidence-based information. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model provided the framework for studying the impact of providing nurses with PDA-supported, evidence-based practice resources, and for studying the organizational, technological, and human resource variables that impact nurses' use patterns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Canada | 3 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 198 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 10% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 22% |
| Unknown | 52 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 14% |
| Unknown | 55 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 January 2013.
All research outputs
#13,027,733
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,365
of 1,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,258
of 280,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.