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 |
Protocole of a controlled before-after evaluation of a national health information technology-based program to improve healthcare coordination and access to information
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2199-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florence Saillour-Glénisson, Sylvie Duhamel, Emmanuelle Fourneyron, Laetitia Huiart, Jean Philippe Joseph, Emmanuel Langlois, Stephane Pincemail, Viviane Ramel, Thomas Renaud, Tamara Roberts, Matthieu Sibé, Frantz Thiessard, Jerome Wittwer, Louis Rachid Salmi, for the EvaTSN Research group |
| Abstract |
Improvement of coordination of all health and social care actors in the patient pathways is an important issue in many countries. Health Information (HI) technology has been considered as a potentially effective answer to this issue. The French Health Ministry first funded the development of five TSN ("Territoire de Soins Numérique"/Digital health territories) projects, aiming at improving healthcare coordination and access to information for healthcare providers, patients and the population, and at improving healthcare professionals work organization. The French Health Ministry then launched a call for grant to fund one research project consisting in evaluating the TSN projects implementation and impact and in developing a model for HI technology evaluation. EvaTSN is mainly based on a controlled before-after study design. Data collection covers three periods: before TSN program implementation, during early TSN program implementation and at late TSN program implementation, in the five TSN projects' territories and in five comparison territories. Three populations will be considered: "TSN-targeted people" (healthcare system users and people having characteristics targeted by the TSN projects), "TSN patient users" (people included in TSN experimentations or using particular services) and "TSN professional users" (healthcare professionals involved in TSN projects). Several samples will be made in each population depending on the objective, axis and stage of the study. Four types of data sources are considered: 1) extractions from the French National Heath Insurance Database (SNIIRAM) and the French Autonomy Personalized Allowance database, 2) Ad hoc surveys collecting information on knowledge of TSN projects, TSN program use, ease of use, satisfaction and understanding, TSN pathway experience and appropriateness of hospital admissions, 3) qualitative analyses using semi-directive interviews and focus groups and document analyses and 4) extractions of TSN implementation indicators from TSN program database. EvaTSN is a challenging French national project for the production of evidenced-based information on HI technologies impact and on the context and conditions of their effectiveness and efficiency. We will be able to support health care management in order to implement HI technologies. We will also be able to produce an evaluation toolkit for HI technology evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02837406 , 08/18/2016. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 33% |
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 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,804,186
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,360
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,778
of 309,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#93
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 309,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.