↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the discriminant factors that influence the adoption and use of clinical communities of practice: the ECOPIH case

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Understanding the discriminant factors that influence the adoption and use of clinical communities of practice: the ECOPIH case
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1036-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Lacasta Tintorer, Souhel Flayeh Beneyto, Josep Maria Manresa, Pere Torán-Monserrat, Ana Jiménez-Zarco, Joan Torrent-Sellens, Francesc Saigí-Rubió

Abstract

The aim of the study presented in this article is to analyse the discriminant factors that have an influence on the use of communities of practice by primary and specialist healthcare professionals (physicians and nurses) for information sharing. Obtaining evidence from an ex-ante analysis to determine what factors explain healthcare professionals' clinical community of practice use allows aspects of its use to be identified. A theoretical model based on a modified technology acceptance model was used as the analysis tool, and a discriminant analysis was performed. An ad-hoc questionnaire was designed and sent to a study population of 357 professionals from the Badalona-Sant Adrià de Besòs Primary Care Service in Catalonia, Spain, which includes nine primary care centres and three specialist care centres. The study sample was formed by the 166 healthcare professionals who responded. The results revealed three main drivers for engagement in a CoP: First, for the whole sample, perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the factor with the greatest discriminant power that distinguished between users and non-users, followed by perceived usefulness for improving clinical practice quality, and lastly habitual social media website and application use. Turning to the two sub-samples of healthcare professions (physicians and nurses, respectively), we saw that the usefulness stemming from community of practice use changed. There were differences in the levels of motivation of healthcare professionals with regards to their engagement with CoP. While perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the main factor for the physicians, perceived usefulness of the Web 2.0 platform use for communication for improving clinical practice quality and perceived ease of use were the main factors for the nurses. In the context of communities of practice, the perception of usefulness of Web 2.0 platform use for communication is determined by organisational, technological and social factors. Specifically, the position that professionals have within the healthcare structure and particularly the closer healthcare professionals' activity is to patients and their professional experience of using social networks and ICTs are crucial to explaining the use of such platforms. Public policies promoting Web 2.0 platform use for communication should therefore go beyond the purely technological dimension and consider other professional and social determinants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 17%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Computer Science 9 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,341,374
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,022
of 7,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,255
of 267,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#46
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 267,231 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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.