| Title |
Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007456.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ipek Gurol‐Urganci, Thyra de Jongh, Vlasta Vodopivec‐Jamsek, Josip Car, Rifat Atun |
| Abstract |
Mobile phone messaging, such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), has rapidly grown into a mode of communication with a wide range of applications, including communicating the results from medical investigations to patients. Alternative modes of communication of results include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, through web-based health records and email. Possible advantages of mobile phone messaging include convenience to both patients and healthcare providers, reduced waiting times for health services and healthcare costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 3% |
| India | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 378 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 72 | 18% |
| Researcher | 54 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 74 | 19% |
| Unknown | 91 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 109 | 27% |
| Psychology | 50 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 26 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 11% |
| Unknown | 99 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,792
of 181,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 181,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.