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 |
An interdisciplinary team communication framework and its application to healthcare 'e-teams' systems design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-9-43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Craig E Kuziemsky, Elizabeth M Borycki, Mary Ellen Purkis, Fraser Black, Michael Boyle, Denise Cloutier-Fisher, Lee Ann Fox, Patricia MacKenzie, Ann Syme, Coby Tschanz, Wendy Wainwright, Helen Wong, Interprofessional Practices Team (alphabetically) |
| Abstract |
There are few studies that examine the processes that interdisciplinary teams engage in and how we can design health information systems (HIS) to support those team processes. This was an exploratory study with two purposes: (1) To develop a framework for interdisciplinary team communication based on structures, processes and outcomes that were identified as having occurred during weekly team meetings. (2) To use the framework to guide 'e-teams' HIS design to support interdisciplinary team meeting communication. |
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% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 22% |
| Researcher | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 23% |
| Unknown | 24 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,172,739
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,101
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,862
of 92,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 92,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.