↓ Skip to main content

The effect of improving task representativeness on capturing nurses’ risk assessment judgements: a comparison of written case simulations and physical simulations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
The effect of improving task representativeness on capturing nurses’ risk assessment judgements: a comparison of written case simulations and physical simulations
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huiqin Yang, Carl Thompson, Robert M Hamm, Martin Bland, Alison Foster

Abstract

The validity of studies describing clinicians' judgements based on their responses to paper cases is questionable, because - commonly used - paper case simulations only partly reflect real clinical environments. In this study we test whether paper case simulations evoke similar risk assessment judgements to the more realistic simulated patients used in high fidelity physical simulations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Psychology 6 11%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 June 2013.
All research outputs
#2,283,305
of 4,508,612 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#500
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,251
of 89,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#21
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,508,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 89,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.