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 |
Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jamie Ross, Fiona Stevenson, Rosa Lau, Elizabeth Murray |
| Abstract |
There is a significant potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality health care, and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, there remains a tension between the use of e-health in this way and implementation. Furthermore, the large body of reviews in the e-health implementation field, often based on one particular technology, setting or health condition make it difficult to access a comprehensive and comprehensible summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This review provides an update and re-analysis of a systematic review of the e-health implementation literature culminating in a set of accessible and usable recommendations for anyone involved or interested in the implementation of e-health. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2014. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews of the implementation of e-health. Data from included studies were synthesised using the principles of meta-ethnography, and categorisation of the data was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Forty-four reviews mainly from North America and Europe were included. A range of e-health technologies including electronic medical records and clinical decision support systems were represented. Healthcare settings included primary care, secondary care and home care. Factors important for implementation were identified at the levels of the following: the individual e-health technology, the outer setting, the inner setting and the individual health professionals as well as the process of implementation. This systematic review of reviews provides a synthesis of the literature that both acknowledges the multi-level complexity of e-health implementation and provides an accessible and useful guide for those planning implementation. New interpretations of a large amount of data across e-health systems and healthcare settings have been generated and synthesised into a set of useable recommendations for practice. This review provides a further empirical test of the CFIR and identifies areas where additional research is necessary. PROSPERO, CRD42015017661. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 26 | 26% |
| United States | 10 | 10% |
| Finland | 7 | 7% |
| Canada | 4 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 56% |
| Scientists | 29 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1220 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 218 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 135 | 11% |
| Researcher | 134 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 97 | 8% |
| Other | 56 | 5% |
| Other | 193 | 16% |
| Unknown | 393 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 204 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 146 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 85 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 77 | 6% |
| Psychology | 76 | 6% |
| Other | 202 | 16% |
| Unknown | 436 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 14 December 2023.
All research outputs
#508,855
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#33
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,756
of 323,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 323,457 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 97% of its contemporaries.