The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by healthcare practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004749.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Fiander, Jessie McGowan, Roland Grad, Pierre Pluye, Karin Hannes, Michel Labrecque, Nia W Roberts, Douglas M Salzwedel, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell |
| Abstract |
There is a large volume of health information available, and, if applied in clinical practice, may contribute to effective patient care. Despite an abundance of information, sub-optimal care is common. Many factors influence practitioners' use of health information, and format (electronic or other) may be one such factor. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 20% |
| Scientists | 4 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 327 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 17% |
| Researcher | 49 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 9% |
| Librarian | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 64 | 19% |
| Unknown | 83 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 97 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 16% |
| Psychology | 21 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 44 | 13% |
| Unknown | 90 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,179,642
of 26,150,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,294
of 13,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,463
of 279,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,150,873 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 279,046 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 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.