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 |
Electronic immunization data collection systems: application of an evaluation framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine L Heidebrecht, Jeffrey C Kwong, Michael Finkelstein, Sherman D Quan, Jennifer A Pereira, Susan Quach, Shelley L Deeks |
| Abstract |
Evaluating the features and performance of health information systems can serve to strengthen the systems themselves as well as to guide other organizations in the process of designing and implementing surveillance tools. We adapted an evaluation framework in order to assess electronic immunization data collection systems, and applied it in two Ontario public health units. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,879,015
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#643
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,168
of 315,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 315,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 50% of its contemporaries.