| Title |
Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012944.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Smisha Agarwal, Claire Glenton, Tigest Tamrat, Nicholas Henschke, Nicola Maayan, Marita S Fønhus, Garrett L Mehl, Simon Lewin |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 18% |
| United States | 6 | 15% |
| Spain | 4 | 10% |
| India | 2 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 20% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 298 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 11% |
| Researcher | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 141 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 3% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Unknown | 152 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 07 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,273,439
of 23,796,227 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,901
of 12,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,582
of 435,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,796,227 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 435,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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 69% of its contemporaries.