↓ 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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Computer Science 27 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 37 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,115,297
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#556
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,694
of 277,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 277,767 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 57% of its contemporaries.