↓ Skip to main content

User Feedback on the MSF Tele-Expertise Service After a 4-Year Pilot Trial – A Comprehensive Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
User Feedback on the MSF Tele-Expertise Service After a 4-Year Pilot Trial – A Comprehensive Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent Bonnardot, Elizabeth Wootton, Joanne Liu, Olivier Steichen, Jean-Hervé Bradol, Christian Hervé, Richard Wootton

Abstract

We surveyed all users of the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) tele-expertise service, approximately four years after it began operation. The survey contained 50 questions and was sent to 294 referrers and 254 specialists. There were 163 responses (response rate 30%). There were no significant differences between the responses from French and English users, so the responses were combined for subsequent analysis. Most of the responders were doctors (133 of 157 who answered that question), and most had completed field missions for MSF, i.e., both specialists and referrers. The majority stated that the system was user friendly and that they found it self-explanatory (i.e., they did not need to be shown how to use it). Almost all the referrers found that the telemedicine advice that they received was helpful, changed diagnosis and management, and/or reassured the patient. Similar feedback came from the specialists, who also felt that there was educational value for the field doctor. Although there was general satisfaction with the service, the survey identified various problems. The main concerns of the referrers were the lack of promotion of the system at headquarters' level, and the main concerns of the specialists were the lack of feedback about patient follow-up. Nonetheless, both referrers and specialists recognized the benefits of telemedicine in improving patient management, providing education, and reducing isolation in the field.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 35%
Computer Science 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 22%
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 05 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,777,370
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,941
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,201
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#36
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.