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 |
The use of advanced medical technologies at home: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5123-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ingrid ten Haken, Somaya Ben Allouch, Wim H. van Harten |
| Abstract |
The number of medical technologies used in home settings has increased substantially over the last 10-15 years. In order to manage their use and to guarantee quality and safety, data on usage trends and practical experiences are important. This paper presents a literature review on types, trends and experiences with the use of advanced medical technologies at home. The study focused on advanced medical technologies that are part of the technical nursing process and 'hands on' processes by nurses, excluding information technology such as domotica. The systematic review of literature was performed by searching the databases MEDLINE, Scopus and Cinahl. We included papers from 2000 to 2015 and selected articles containing empirical material. The review identified 87 relevant articles, 62% was published in the period 2011-2015. Of the included studies, 45% considered devices for respiratory support, 39% devices for dialysis and 29% devices for oxygen therapy. Most research has been conducted on the topic 'user experiences' (36%), mainly regarding patients or informal caregivers. Results show that nurses have a key role in supporting patients and family caregivers in the process of homecare with advanced medical technologies and in providing information for, and as a member of multi-disciplinary teams. However, relatively low numbers of articles were found studying nurses perspective. Research on medical technologies used at home has increased considerably until 2015. Much is already known on topics, such as user experiences; safety, risks, incidents and complications; and design and technological development. We also identified a lack of research exploring the views of nurses with regard to medical technologies for homecare, such as user experiences of nurses with different technologies, training, instruction and education of nurses and human factors by nurses in risk management and patient safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 5 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 285 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 7% |
| Researcher | 13 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Unknown | 144 | 51% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 10% |
| Engineering | 12 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 12% |
| Unknown | 145 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
#5,002,703
of 24,848,516 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,611
of 16,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,206
of 335,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#173
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,848,516 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 335,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.