↓ Skip to main content

The Development of a Multilingual Tool for Facilitating the Primary-Specialty Care Interface in Low Resource Settings: the MSF Tele-Expertise System

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
The Development of a Multilingual Tool for Facilitating the Primary-Specialty Care Interface in Low Resource Settings: the MSF Tele-Expertise System
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent Bonnardot, Joanne Liu, Elizabeth Wootton, Isabel Amoros, David Olson, Sidney Wong, Richard Wootton

Abstract

In 2009, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) started a pilot trial of store-and-forward telemedicine to support field workers. One network was operated in French and one in English; a third, Spanish network was brought into operation in 2012. The three telemedicine pilots were then combined to form a single multilingual tele-expertise system, tailored to support MSF field staff. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all telemedicine cases referred from April 2010 to March 2014. We also carried out a survey of all users in December 2013. A total of 1039 referrals were received from 41 countries, of which 89% were in English, 10% in French, and 1% in Spanish. The cases covered a very wide range of medical and surgical specialties. The median delay in providing the first specialist response to the referrer was 5.3 h (interquartile range 1.8, 16.4). The survey was sent to 294 referrers and 254 specialists. Of these, 224 were considered as active users (41%). Out of the 548 users, 163 (30%) answered the survey. The majority of referrers (79%) reported that the advice received via the system improved their management of the patient. The main concerns raised by referrers and specialists were the lack of support or promotion of system at headquarters' level and the lack of feedback about patient follow-up. Because of the size of the MSF organization, it is clear that there is potential for further organizational adoption.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,445,571
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,440
of 9,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,853
of 236,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#34
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 236,357 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 56% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.