↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011388.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick M Archambault, Tom H van de Belt, Craig Kuziemsky, Ariane Plaisance, Audrey Dupuis, Carrie A McGinn, Rebecca Francois, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Alexis F Turgeon, Tanya Horsley, William Witteman, Julien Poitras, Jean Lapointe, Kevin Brand, Jean Lachaine, France Légaré

Abstract

Collaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist. The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs. Teams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted. We screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing. While there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 3%
Student > Postgraduate 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Unknown 57 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 57 90%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#673,513
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,192
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,289
of 263,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 263,808 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.