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 |
Protocol for evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of ePrescribing systems and candidate prototype for other related health information technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-314 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard J Lilford, Alan J Girling, Aziz Sheikh, Jamie J Coleman, Peter J Chilton, Samantha L Burn, David J Jenkinson, Laurence Blake, Karla Hemming |
| Abstract |
This protocol concerns the assessment of cost-effectiveness of hospital health information technology (HIT) in four hospitals. Two of these hospitals are acquiring ePrescribing systems incorporating extensive decision support, while the other two will implement systems incorporating more basic clinical algorithms. Implementation of an ePrescribing system will have diffuse effects over myriad clinical processes, so the protocol has to deal with a large amount of information collected at various 'levels' across the system. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Denmark | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Librarian | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,683,641
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,197
of 7,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,439
of 230,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#73
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,830 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 230,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 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.