↓ Skip to main content

The challenges of real-world implementation of web-based shared care software: the HopSCOTCH Shared-Care Obesity Trial in Children

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
The challenges of real-world implementation of web-based shared care software: the HopSCOTCH Shared-Care Obesity Trial in Children
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-14-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Lycett, Gary Wittert, Jane Gunn, Cathy Hutton, Susan A Clifford, Melissa Wake

Abstract

E-health initiatives hold promise to improve shared-care models of health care. In 2008-2011 we developed and trialled web-based software to facilitate a randomised trial of a shared-care approach for childhood obesity involving General Practitioners (GPs) working with tertiary specialists. We describe the software's development, implementation and evaluation, and make recommendations for future e-health initiatives. The web-based software was designed with the goals of allowing both GPs and specialists to communicate and review patient progress; integrating with existing GP software; and supporting GPs to deliver the structured intervention. Specifically, we aimed to highlight the challenges inherent in this process, and report on the extent to which the software ultimately met its implementation and user aims.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 21%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Psychology 14 7%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Computer Science 12 6%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 50 26%
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 30 July 2014.
All research outputs
#13,903,378
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,006
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,453
of 230,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#19
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 230,589 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.