↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
Title
Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004510.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patriek Mistiaen, Else Poot

Abstract

It is known that many patients encounter a variety of problems in the first weeks after they have been discharged from hospital to home. In recent years many projects have addressed discharge planning, with the aim of reducing problems after discharge. Telephone follow-up (TFU) is seen as a good means of exchanging information, providing health education and advice, managing symptoms, recognising complications early, giving reassurance and providing quality aftercare service. Some research has shown that telephone follow-up is feasible, and that patients appreciate such calls. However, at present it is not clear whether TFU is also effective in reducing postdischarge problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 382 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 20%
Researcher 52 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 10%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 8%
Other 82 21%
Unknown 71 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 16%
Psychology 29 7%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 2%
Other 32 8%
Unknown 89 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 July 2013.
All research outputs
#3,403,282
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,628
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,698
of 119,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 119,974 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.