↓ Skip to main content

Teleradiology Usage and User Satisfaction with the Telemedicine System Operated by Médecins Sans Frontières

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Teleradiology Usage and User Satisfaction with the Telemedicine System Operated by Médecins Sans Frontières
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00202
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jarred Halton, Cara Kosack, Saskia Spijker, Elizabeth Joekes, Savvas Andronikou, Karen Chetcuti, William E. Brant, Laurent Bonnardot, Richard Wootton

Abstract

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) began a pilot trial of store-and-forward telemedicine in 2010, initially operating separate networks in English, French, and Spanish; these were merged into a single, multilingual platform in 2013. We reviewed the pattern of teleradiology usage on the MSF telemedicine platform in the 4-year period from April 2010. In total, 564 teleradiology cases were submitted from 22 different countries. A total of 1114 files were uploaded with the 564 cases, the majority being of type JPEG (n = 1081, 97%). The median file size was 938 kb (interquartile range, IQR 163-1659). A panel of 14 radiologists was available to report cases, but most (90%) were reported by only 4 radiologists. The median radiologist response time was 6.1 h (IQR 3.0-20). A user satisfaction survey was sent to 29 users in the last 6 months of the study. There was a 28% response rate. Most respondents found the radiologist's advice helpful and all of them stated that the advice assisted in clarification of a diagnosis. Although some MSF sites made substantial use of the system for teleradiology, there is considerable potential for expansion. More promotion of telemedicine may be needed at different levels of the organization to increase engagement of staff.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Engineering 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 27%
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 28 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,308,698
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,456
of 9,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,554
of 260,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#52
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 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 9.9. 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 260,390 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 81 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.