↓ Skip to main content

Examining the online approaches used by hospitals in Sydney, Australia to inform patients about healthcare associated infections and infection prevention strategies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Examining the online approaches used by hospitals in Sydney, Australia to inform patients about healthcare associated infections and infection prevention strategies
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2899-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Park, H. Seale

Abstract

Provision of information plays a critical role in supporting patients to be engaged or empowered to be involved with infection prevention measures in hospitals. This explorative study evaluated the suitability, readability and accessibility of information on healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) and infection prevention strategies targeted at patients from the websites of 19 acute care public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We included hospitals with greater than 200 beds in the sample. We examined online information targeted at patients on HCAIs and infection prevention and compared it using the Suitability Assessment of Material (SAM) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formulas for suitability, readability and accessibility. Thirty-six webpages were identified as being relevant and containing information about HCAIs or infection prevention. Based on the SAM/SMOG scores, only three webpages were found to be 'superior'. Many of the webpages scored poorly in content, literacy, graphics, learning stimulation and cultural appropriateness. In comparison, most of the webpages scored well in the layout and typography. The majority (97%) of the materials were written at a level higher than the recommended reading grade level. Lastly, the websites scored poorly on the ability to locate the information easily, as messages about HCAIs/infection prevention were usually embedded into other topics. While providing information online is only one approach to delivering messages about infection prevention, it is becoming increasingly important in today's technology society. Hospitals are neglecting to use best practices when designing their online resources and current websites are difficult to navigate. The findings point to the need to review patient information on HCAIs regarding suitability, readability and accessibility.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 3 8%
Design 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,099,964
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,004
of 7,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,118
of 440,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#21
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 440,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.