↓ Skip to main content

A stimulus to define informatics and health information technology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2009
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 Mendeley
citeulike
15 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
A stimulus to define informatics and health information technology
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2009
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-9-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Hersh

Abstract

Despite the growing interest by leaders, policy makers, and others, the terminology of health information technology as well as biomedical and health informatics is poorly understood and not even agreed upon by academics and professionals in the field. The paper, presented as a Debate to encourage further discussion and disagreement, provides definitions of the major terminology used in biomedical and health informatics and health information technology. For informatics, it focuses on the words that modify the term as well as individuals who practice the discipline. Other categories of related terms are covered as well, from the associated disciplines of computer science, information technology and health information management to the major application categories of applications used. The discussion closes with a classification of individuals who work in the largest segment of the field, namely clinical informatics. The goal of presenting in Debate format is to provide a starting point for discussion to reach a documented consensus on the definition and use of these terms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 18 4%
Canada 6 1%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Indonesia 3 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Nigeria 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 366 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 101 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 14%
Researcher 41 10%
Professor 28 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 6%
Other 121 29%
Unknown 43 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 30%
Computer Science 96 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 30 7%
Social Sciences 28 7%
Other 56 13%
Unknown 55 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,038,716
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#121
of 1,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,520
of 92,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,977 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 92,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them