↓ Skip to main content

Telemedicine for Epilepsy Support in Resource-Poor Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2014
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
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Telemedicine for Epilepsy Support in Resource-Poor Settings
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Patterson

Abstract

Epilepsy is a common disease worldwide causing significant physical and social disability. It is one of the most treatable neurological diseases. Yet, in rural, poorer countries like much of India and Nepal, most people with epilepsy are not undergoing any treatment often because they cannot access doctors. Conventional Approaches: It is being appreciated that perhaps doctors are not the solution and that enabling health workers to treat epilepsy may be better. Few details, however, have been put forward about how that might be achieved. Thinking Differently: Untreated epilepsy should be considered a public health problem like HIV/AIDS, the various steps needed for treatment identified and solutions found. Telemedicine Approaches: Telemedicine might contribute to two steps - diagnosis and review. A tool that enables non-doctors to diagnose episodes as epileptic has been developed as a mobile phone app and has good applicability, sensitivity, and specificity for the diagnosis. There are a number of ways in which the use of phone review or short messaging service can improve management.

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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,385
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,455
of 9,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,400
of 235,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#50
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 235,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.