↓ Skip to main content

Examining uptake of online education on obstructive sleep apnoea in general practitioners: a randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
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.
Title
Examining uptake of online education on obstructive sleep apnoea in general practitioners: a randomised trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2157-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Paul, Shiho Rose, Michael Hensley, Jeffrey Pretto, Margaret Hardy, Frans Henskens, Tara Clinton-McHarg, Mariko Carey

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) affects up to 28 % of the adult population in Western countries. The detection and management of OSA by general practitioners (GPs) can be poor. The study aimed to examine what influence enhanced invitations had on uptake of on-line learning modules for OSA by GPs, and whether recent referrals of patients to sleep specialists influenced uptake. Practicing GPs in regional Australia were identified and randomised to receive either an enhanced or standard invitation letter to a new on-line education module for OSA. The enhanced letter included indication that the module was eligible for professional accreditation and described the prevalence and burden of sleep disorders. Some included extra emphasis if the GP had recently referred a patient for diagnostic investigation of OSA. Two reminder letters were sent. Of 796 eligible GPs who received the letters, sixteen (2 %) accessed the website and four completed the modules over the four-month study period. GPs who received an enhanced invitation letter were not significantly more likely to access the website compared to GPs who received the standard invitation letter. Recent referral of a patient for diagnostic investigation was also not a significant factor in influencing use of the module. GP interest in on-line education about OSA appears low, and emphasis of relevant recent past patient(s) and the opportunity for professional education points was not successful in increasing engagement. There is a need to identify effective approaches to improving the detection and management of OSA in general practice.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Psychology 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 July 2022.
All research outputs
#18,565,641
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,037
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,001
of 363,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#61
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 363,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.