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 |
How do medical doctors use a web-based oncology protocol system? A comparison of Australian doctors at different levels of medical training using logfile analysis and an online survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-82 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia M Langton, Bianca Blanch, Nicole Pesa, Jae Min Park, Sallie-Anne Pearson |
| Abstract |
Electronic decision support is commonplace in medical practice. However, its adoption at the point-of-care is dependent on a range of organisational, patient and clinician-related factors. In particular, level of clinical experience is an important driver of electronic decision support uptake. Our objective was to examine the way in which Australian doctors at different stages of medical training use a web-based oncology system (www.eviq.org.au). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2013.
All research outputs
#12,879,023
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#877
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,725
of 197,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 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 53% 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 197,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 51% of its contemporaries.