↓ Skip to main content

Video observation in HIT development: lessons learned on benefits and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Video observation in HIT development: lessons learned on benefits and challenges
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-91
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Marie Høstgaard, Pernille Bertelsen

Abstract

Experience shows that the precondition for the development of successful health information technologies is a thorough insight into clinical work practice. In contemporary clinical work practice, clinical work and health information technology are integrated, and part of the practice is tacit. When work practice becomes routine, it slips to the background of the conscious awareness and becomes difficult to recognize without the context to support recall. This means that it is difficult to capture with traditional ethnographic research methods or in usability laboratories or clinical set ups. Observation by the use of the video technique within healthcare settings has proven to be capable of providing a thorough insight into the complex clinical work practice and its context - including parts of the tacit practice. The objective of this paper is 1) to argue for the video observation technique to inform and improve health-information-technology development and 2) to share insights and lessons learned on benefits and challenges when using the video observation technique within healthcare settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Social Sciences 11 16%
Computer Science 10 14%
Engineering 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 8 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,150,222
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,102
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,869
of 169,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#38
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 169,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.