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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ramon Kampmeijer, Milena Pavlova, Marzena Tambor, Stanisława Golinowska, Wim Groot |
| Abstract |
The use of e-health and m-health technologies in health promotion and primary prevention among older people is largely unexplored. This study provides a systematic review of the evidence on the scope of the use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults (age 50+). A systematic literature review was conducted in October 2015. The search for relevant publications was done in the search engine PubMed. The key inclusion criteria were: e-health and m-health tools used, participants' age 50+ years, focus on health promotion and primary prevention, published in the past 10 years, in English, and full-paper can be obtained. The text of the publications was analyzed based on two themes: the characteristics of e-health and m-health tools and the determinants of the use of these tools by older adults. The quality of the studies reviewed was also assessed. The initial search resulted in 656 publications. After we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 45 publications were selected for the review. In the publications reviewed, various types of e-health/m-health tools were described, namely apps, websites, devices, video consults and webinars. Most of the publications (60 %) reported studies in the US. In 37 % of the publications, the study population was older adults in general, while the rest of the publications studied a specific group of older adults (e.g. women or those with overweight). The publications indicated various facilitators and barriers. The most commonly mentioned facilitator was the support for the use of the e-health/m-health tools that the older adults received. E-health and m-health tools are used by older adults in diverse health promotion programs, but also outside formal programs to monitor and improve their health. The latter is hardly studied. The successful use of e-health/m-health tools in health promotion programs for older adults greatly depends on the older adults' motivation and support that older adults receive when using e-health and m-health tools. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 13% |
| Canada | 3 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Colombia | 2 | 8% |
| Peru | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 29% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 584 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 583 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 95 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 61 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 10% |
| Researcher | 40 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 31 | 5% |
| Other | 100 | 17% |
| Unknown | 197 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 89 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 81 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 34 | 6% |
| Psychology | 30 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 4% |
| Other | 104 | 18% |
| Unknown | 221 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 05 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,226,124
of 24,778,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#353
of 8,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,617
of 343,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#14
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,778,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 343,097 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.