↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
282 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
637 Mendeley
Title
Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007458.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ipek Gurol-Urganci, Thyra de Jongh, Vlasta Vodopivec-Jamsek, Rifat Atun, Josip Car

Abstract

This review is an update of the original Cochrane review published in July 2012. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs for the health system, leading to delays in diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Patients' forgetfulness is one of the main reasons for missed appointments. Patient reminders may help reduce missed appointments. Modes of communicating reminders for appointments to patients include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, and mobile phone messaging. Mobile phone messaging applications, such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), could provide an important, inexpensive delivery medium for reminders for healthcare appointments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters 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 637 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 612 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 130 20%
Researcher 93 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 13%
Student > Bachelor 62 10%
Other 48 8%
Other 144 23%
Unknown 80 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 11%
Social Sciences 54 8%
Computer Science 45 7%
Psychology 38 6%
Other 92 14%
Unknown 114 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#954,496
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,506
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,470
of 272,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 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 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 272,169 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.