↓ Skip to main content

Nurses and Twitter: The good, the bad, and the reluctant

Overview of attention for article published in Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 275)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
93 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Nurses and Twitter: The good, the bad, and the reluctant
Published in
Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., June 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.colegn.2013.09.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhonda Wilson, Jamie Ranse, Andrew Cashin, Paul McNamara

Abstract

Nurses and other health professionals are adopting social media to network with health care professionals and organizations, support health education, deliver health promotion messages, enhance professional development and employment opportunities, and communicate within political forums. This paper explores the growing use of social media, and examines the current dynamics of Twitter as an example of the uptake of social media. This paper also offers practical guidance for new Twitter users who are interested in using this social media approach in clinical or educational settings, and for professional development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
Canada 2 3%
Spain 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Egypt 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 53 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 25 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Computer Science 9 14%
Unspecified 8 12%
Other 12 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 10 November 2018.
All research outputs
#202,259
of 12,276,356 outputs
Outputs from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#1
of 275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,223
of 169,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,276,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 169,569 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them