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 |
A consumer health informatics (CHI) toolbox: challenges and implications.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, January 2005
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theodora A Bakker, Andrea N Ryce, Robert A Logan, Tony Tse, Lidia Hutcherson |
| Abstract |
Consumer health informatics (CHI) is a rapidly evolving sub-discipline of medical informatics. Such developing fields typically share common needs, such as harmonizing terms and building a common foundation of research methods and instruments. The authors describe a pilot study to conceptualize and develop a "CHI toolbox," a repository of existing methods and instruments across relevant established fields. The challenges encountered in attempting to organize concepts in a nascent, interdisciplinary field are discussed. The authors' experiences in creating a comprehensive CHI toolbox suggest that a larger, concerted effort to develop a similar product by members of the relevant research communities could accelerate the development of common terms, operational definitions, variables, and instruments within the CHI field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Denmark | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 4 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
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 29 June 2014.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
#476
of 912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,803
of 151,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 912 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 151,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.