↓ 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, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007458.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Car J, Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R

Abstract

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, and reminders may help alleviate this problem. 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 14 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
South Africa 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 111 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 20%
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 31%
Computer Science 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 24 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#689,877
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,410
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,681
of 164,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 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 12,296 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 164,332 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.