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 Scoping Review of the Quality and the Design of Evaluations of Mobile Health, Telehealth, Smart Pump and Monitoring Technologies Performed in a Pharmacy-Related Setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00678 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Darrin Baines, Imandeep K. Gahir, Afthab Hussain, Amir J. Khan, Philip Schneider, Syed S. Hasan, Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar |
| Abstract |
Background: There is currently a need for high quality evaluations of new mobile health, telehealth, smart pump and monitoring technologies undertaken in a pharmacy-related setting. We aim to evaluate the use of these monitoring technologies performed in this setting. Methods: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the quality and the design of technologies conducted in pharmacy-related facilities was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE and Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to identify original studies examining the quality and the design of technologies and published in peer-reviewed journals. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by two authors. Quality scores over 75% are classed as being acceptable using a "relatively conservative" quality benchmark. Scores over 55% are included using a "relatively liberal" cut-off point. Results: Screening resulted in the selection of 40 formal evaluations. A substantial number of studies (32, 80.00%) were performed in the United States, quantitative in approach (33, 82.50%) and retrospective cohort (24, 60.00%) in study design. The most common pharmacy-related settings were: 22 primary care (55.00%); 10 hospital pharmacy (25.00%); 7 community pharmacy (17.50%); one primary care and hospital pharmacy (2.50%). The majority of the evaluations (33, 82.50%) reported clinical outcomes, six (15.00%) measured clinical and economic outcomes, and one (2.50%) economic only. Twelve (30.00%) quantitative studies and no qualitative study met objective criteria for "relatively conservative" quality. Using a lower "relatively liberal" benchmark, 27 quantitative (81.82%) and four qualitative (57.41%) studies met the lower quality criterion. Conclusion: Worldwide, few evaluations of mobile health, telehealth, smart pump and monitoring technologies in pharmacy-related setting have been published.Their quality is often below the standard necessary for inclusion in a systematic review mainly due to inadequate study design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 Kingdom | 8 | 44% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,655,436
of 24,858,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,126
of 18,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,327
of 335,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#29
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,858,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 335,722 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.