| Title |
Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004274.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth Murray, Joanne Burns, Sharon See Tai, Rosalind Lai, Irwin Nazareth |
| Abstract |
Interactive Health Communication Applications (IHCAs) are computer-based, usually web-based, information packages for patients that combine health information with at least one of social support, decision support, or behaviour change support. These are innovations in health care and their effects on health are uncertain. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 888 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 1% |
| Canada | 6 | <1% |
| Spain | 5 | <1% |
| Norway | 4 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 1% |
| Unknown | 826 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 139 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 138 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 126 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 78 | 9% |
| Other | 48 | 5% |
| Other | 189 | 21% |
| Unknown | 170 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 238 | 27% |
| Psychology | 101 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 87 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 73 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 51 | 6% |
| Other | 132 | 15% |
| Unknown | 206 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,095,441
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,777
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,042
of 58,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 58,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 66% of its contemporaries.