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 |
Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of computerized clinical decision support systems in specialty hospitals: protocol for a qualitative cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0105-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lorenzo Moja, Elisa Giulia Liberati, Laura Galuppo, Mara Gorli, Marco Maraldi, Oriana Nanni, Giulio Rigon, Pietro Ruggieri, Francesca Ruggiero, Giuseppe Scaratti, Alberto Vaona, Koren Hyogene Kwag |
| Abstract |
Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been shown to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care by connecting healthcare professionals with high quality, evidence-based information at the point-of-care. The mere provision of CDSSs, however, does not guarantee their uptake. Rather, individual and institutional perceptions can foster or inhibit the integration of CDSSs into routine clinical workflow. Current studies exploring health professionals' perceptions of CDSSs focus primarily on technical and usability issues, overlooking the social or cultural variables as well as broader administrative or organizational roles that may influence CDSS adoption. Moreover, there is a lack of data on the evolution of perceived barriers or facilitators to CDSS uptake across different stages of implementation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 14% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 14% |
| Unknown | 45 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 51 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,062,982
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,367
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,814
of 236,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#43
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 236,628 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.