| Title |
Health workers’ perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd011942.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Willem A Odendaal, Jocelyn Anstey Watkins, Natalie Leon, Jane Goudge, Frances Griffiths, Mark Tomlinson, Karen Daniels |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 12 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 11% |
| South Africa | 5 | 9% |
| India | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 70% |
| Scientists | 9 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,056 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1056 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 117 | 11% |
| Researcher | 83 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 83 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 79 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 73 | 7% |
| Other | 182 | 17% |
| Unknown | 439 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 161 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 119 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 80 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 59 | 6% |
| Psychology | 34 | 3% |
| Other | 140 | 13% |
| Unknown | 463 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 05 March 2023.
All research outputs
#911,684
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,930
of 12,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,211
of 371,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 371,022 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.