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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Legal, Practical, and Ethical Considerations for Making Online Patient Portals Accessible for All.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Public Health, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2105/ajph.2017.303933 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Courtney R Lyles, Jim Fruchterman, Mara Youdelman, Dean Schillinger |
| Abstract |
Largely driven by the financial incentives of the HITECH Act's Meaningful Use program as part of federal US health care reform, access to portal Web sites has rapidly expanded, allowing many patients to view their medical record information online. Despite this expansion, there is little attention paid to the accessibility of portals for more vulnerable patient populations-especially patients with limited health literacy or limited English proficiency, and individuals with disabilities. We argue that there are potential legal mandates for improving portal accessibility (e.g., the Civil Rights and the Rehabilitation Acts), as well as ethical considerations to prevent the exacerbation of existing health and health care disparities. To address these legal, practical, and ethical considerations, we present standards and broad recommendations that could greatly improve the reach and impact of portal Web sites. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 17, 2017: e1-e4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303933). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 21 | 70% |
| Canada | 3 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 63% |
| Scientists | 7 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 27% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,851,564
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Public Health
#2,927
of 12,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,444
of 327,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Public Health
#52
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 12,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 327,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 67% of its contemporaries.