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 |
Who uses emergency departments inappropriately and when - a national cross-sectional study using a monitoring data system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-258 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philip McHale, Sara Wood, Karen Hughes, Mark A Bellis, Ulf Demnitz, Sacha Wyke |
| Abstract |
Increasing pressures on emergency departments (ED) are straining services and creating inefficiencies in service delivery worldwide. A potentially avoidable pressure is inappropriate attendances (IA); typically low urgency, self-referred patients better managed by other services. This study examines demographics and temporal trends associated with IA to help inform measures to address them. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 5 | 26% |
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| Spain | 2 | 11% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 21% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 188 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 21% |
| Unknown | 42 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 14% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 01 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,234,859
of 25,602,335 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#867
of 4,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,083
of 321,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,602,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 321,505 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.