↓ Skip to main content

Collaborative development of an electronic Personal Health Record for people with severe and enduring mental health problems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Collaborative development of an electronic Personal Health Record for people with severe and enduring mental health problems
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12888-014-0305-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liam Ennis, Dan Robotham, Mike Denis, Ninjeri Pandit, Dave Newton, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious attempts to implement electronic Personal Health Records (ePHRs) underline the importance of stakeholder involvement. We describe the development of an ePHR for people with severe and enduring mental health problems, and provide a model of involving stakeholders throughout.MethodsThere were three stages to the development of the ePHR. These were 1) identifying and responding to user and clinical needs; 2) preliminary testing; and 3) preliminary implementation. Stakeholder involvement was pervasive in all stages. We collaborated with 133 stakeholders in the first stage, 13 in the second, and 26 in the third. On the micro-level, a service user researcher conducted much of the data collection and analysis. On the macro-level, a service user advisory group guided decisions throughout the project, and a service user was an active member of the project executive board and the implementation team.ResultsService users and clinicians preferred an interactive ePHR with features such as access to care plans and care notes, a mood tracker, patient reported outcomes feeding into the clinical record, and social networking features. Many of the above were constructed following consultation with the relevant professionals, however further consultation is required before building a social networking function or providing access to full care notes. Service users positively rated the usability of the ePHR. Drop-in sessions helped service users access technology and learn how to use the ePHR.ConclusionsWe outline four considerations for future developers of ePHRs: appeal, construction, ease of use, and implementation. Success rests on implementation in routine practice, so ePHRs must be intuitive and useful for both service users and staff. Continued involvement of end users throughout the design and testing process can help to achieve this goal.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 161 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 19%
Computer Science 15 9%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 33 20%
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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#13,923,205
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,917
of 4,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,615
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#49
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 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 4,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 362,492 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.