| Title |
Email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007981.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Barbara Meyer, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review considers the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and reminders for attendance; particularly scheduling, rescheduling and cancelling healthcare appointments, and providing prompts/reminders for attendance at appointments. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 144 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Researcher | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 40 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 11% |
| Psychology | 12 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 48 | 31% |
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 19 October 2012.
All research outputs
#7,415,394
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,927
of 12,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,437
of 167,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 167,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.