↓ Skip to main content

Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Darking, Rachel Anson, Ferdinand Bravo, Julie Davis, Steve Flowers, Emma Gillingham, Lawrence Goldberg, Paul Helliwell, Flis Henwood, Claire Hudson, Simon Latimer, Paul Lowes, Ian Stirling

Abstract

Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and telemedicine are positioned by policymakers as health information technologies that are integral to achieving improved clinical outcomes and efficiency savings. However, evaluating the extent to which these aims are met poses distinct evaluation challenges, particularly where clinical and cost outcomes form the sole focus of evaluation design. We propose that a practice-centred approach to evaluation - in which those whose day-to-day care practice is altered (or not) by the introduction of new technologies are placed at the centre of evaluation efforts - can complement and in some instances offer advantages over, outcome-centric evaluation models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 103 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Computer Science 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 26 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,134,044
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,017
of 7,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,995
of 228,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#80
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 228,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.