↓ Skip to main content

Patient satisfaction with E-Oral Health care in rural and remote settings: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Patient satisfaction with E-Oral Health care in rural and remote settings: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0550-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elham Emami, Naomi Kadoch, Sara Homayounfar, Hermina Harnagea, Patrice Dupont, Nicolas Giraudeau, Rodrigo Mariño

Abstract

Individuals living in rural and remote settings face oral health problems and access-to-care barriers due to the shortage of oral health care providers in these areas, geographic remoteness, lack of appropriate infrastructure and lower socio-economic status. E-Oral Health technology could mitigate these barriers by providing the delivery of some aspects of health care and exchange of information across geographic distances. This review will systematically evaluate the literature on patient satisfaction with received E-Oral Health care in rural and remote communities. This systematic review will include interventional and observational studies in which E-Oral Health technology is used as an intervention in rural and remote communities of any country worldwide. Conventional oral health care will be used as a comparator when provided. Patient satisfaction with received E-Oral Health care will be considered as a primary outcome for this review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Two review authors will independently screen results to identify potentially eligible studies and independently extract the data from the included studies. A third author will resolve any discrepancies between reviewers. Two independent researchers will assess the risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. The potential implications and benefits of E-Oral Health care can inform policymakers and health care professionals to take advantage of this technology to address health care challenges in these areas. PROSPERO CRD42016039942 .

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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 46 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 50 39%
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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,952,935
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,560
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,091
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.