↓ Skip to main content

A scoping review of Australian allied health research in ehealth

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
A scoping review of Australian allied health research in ehealth
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1791-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa Iacono, Kellie Stagg, Natalie Pearce, Alana Hulme Chambers

Abstract

Uptake of e-health, the use of information communication technologies (ICT) for health service delivery, in allied health appears to be lagging behind other health care areas, despite offering the potential to address problems with service access by rural and remote Australians. The aim of the study was to conduct a scoping review of studies into the application of or attitudes towards ehealth amongst allied health professionals conducted in Australia. Studies meeting inclusion criteria published from January 2004 to June 2015 were reviewed. Professions included were audiology, dietetics, exercise physiology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, podiatry, social work, and speech pathology. Terms for these professions and forms of ehealth were combined in databases of CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (1806 - Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid) and AMED (Ovid). Forty-four studies meeting inclusion criteria were summarised. They were either trials of aspects of ehealth service delivery, or clinician and/or client use of and attitudes towards ehealth. Trials of ehealth were largely from two research groups located at the Universities of Sydney and Queensland; most involved speech pathology and physiotherapy. Assessments through ehealth and intervention outcomes through ehealth were comparable with face-to-face delivery. Clinicians used ICT mostly for managing their work and for professional development, but were reticent about its use in service delivery, which contrasted with the more positive attitudes and experiences of clients. The potential of ehealth to address allied health needs of Australians living in rural and remote Australia appears unrealised. Clinicians may need to embrace ehealth as a means to radicalise practice, rather than replicate existing practices through a different mode of delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Researcher 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 51 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 60 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 15%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 9 4%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 64 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,275,152
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,085
of 7,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,958
of 319,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#132
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 319,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.