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 |
Perceived barriers of heart failure nurses and cardiologists in using clinical decision support systems in the treatment of heart failure patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-54 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arjen E de Vries, Martje HL van der Wal, Maurice MW Nieuwenhuis, Richard M de Jong, Rene B van Dijk, Tiny Jaarsma, Hans L Hillege, Rene J Jorna |
| Abstract |
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) can support guideline adherence in heart failure (HF) patients. However, the use of CDSSs is limited and barriers in working with CDSSs have been described as a major obstacle. It is unknown if barriers to CDSSs are present and differ between HF nurses and cardiologists. Therefore the aims of this study are; 1. Explore the type and number of perceived barriers of HF nurses and cardiologists to use a CDSS in the treatment of HF patients. 2. Explore possible differences in perceived barriers between two groups. 3. Assess the relevance and influence of knowledge management (KM) on Responsibility/Trust (R&T) and Barriers/Threats (B&T). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 18% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#15,270,698
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,306
of 1,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,424
of 194,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,981 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 194,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.