↓ Skip to main content

Implementation factors and their effect on e-Health service adoption in rural communities: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 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
Implementation factors and their effect on e-Health service adoption in rural communities: a systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eveline Hage, John P Roo, Marjolein AG van Offenbeek, Albert Boonstra

Abstract

An ageing population is seen as a threat to the quality of life and health in rural communities, and it is often assumed that e-Health services can address this issue. As successful e-Health implementation in organizations has proven difficult, this systematic literature review considers whether this is so for rural communities. This review identifies the critical implementation factors and, following the change model of Pettigrew and Whipp, classifies them in terms of "context", "process", and "content". Through this lens, we analyze the empirical findings found in the literature to address the question: How do context, process, and content factors of e-Health implementation influence its adoption in rural communities?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 307 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 20%
Student > Master 49 16%
Researcher 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Other 64 21%
Unknown 69 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 39 13%
Computer Science 39 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 13%
Social Sciences 38 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 8%
Other 50 16%
Unknown 82 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 28 February 2013.
All research outputs
#1,640,720
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#563
of 7,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,568
of 282,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 282,503 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.