↓ Skip to main content

Intention to adopt clinical decision support systems in a developing country: effect of Physician’s perceived professional autonomy, involvement and belief: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intention to adopt clinical decision support systems in a developing country: effect of Physician’s perceived professional autonomy, involvement and belief: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-142
Pubmed ID
Authors

Murali Sambasivan, Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh, Naresh Kumar, Hossein Nezakati

Abstract

Computer-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are regarded as a key element to enhance decision-making in a healthcare environment to improve the quality of medical care delivery. The concern of having new CDSS unused is still one of the biggest issues in developing countries for the developers and implementers of clinical IT systems. The main objectives of this study are to determine whether (1) the physician's perceived professional autonomy, (2) involvement in the decision to implement CDSS and (3) the belief that CDSS will improve job performance increase the intention to adopt CDSS. Four hypotheses were formulated and tested.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 9 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 23%
Computer Science 25 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 17 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,448,834
of 13,702,549 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#368
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,075
of 248,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#45
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,702,549 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 248,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.