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 |
Impacts of information and communication technologies on nursing care: an overview of systematic reviews (protocol)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0062-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geneviève Rouleau, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, José Côté |
| Abstract |
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) used in the health sector have well-known advantages. They can promote patient-centered healthcare, improve quality of care, and educate health professionals and patients. However, implementation of ICTs remains difficult and involves changes at different levels: patients, healthcare providers, and healthcare organizations. Nurses constitute the largest health provider group of the healthcare workforce. The use of ICTs by nurses can have impacts in their practice. The main objective of this review of systematic reviews is to systematically summarize the best evidence regarding the effects of ICTs on nursing care. We will include all types of reviews that aim to evaluate the influence of ICTs used by nurses on nursing care. We will consider four types of ICTs used by nurses as a way to provide healthcare: management systems, communication systems, information systems, and computerized decision support systems. We will exclude nursing management systems, educational systems, and telephone systems. The following types of comparisons will be carried out: ICT in comparison with usual care/practice, ICT compared to any other ICT, and ICT versus other types of interventions. The primary outcomes will include nurses' practice environment, nursing processes/scope of nursing practice, nurses' professional satisfaction as well as nursing sensitive outcomes, such as patient safety, comfort, and quality of life related to care, empowerment, functional status, satisfaction, and patient experience. Secondary outcomes will include satisfaction with ICT from the nurses and patients' perspective. Reviews published in English, French, or Spanish from 1 January 1995 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstract of the papers in order to assess their eligibility and extract the following information: characteristics of the population and setting, type of interventions (e.g., type of ICTs and service provided), comparisons, outcomes, and review limitations. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion and consensus involving the two reviewers or will involve a third review author, if needed. This overview is an interesting starting point from which to compare and contrast findings of separate reviews regarding the positive and negative effects of ICTs on nursing care. PROSPERO CRD42014014762 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 468 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 461 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 109 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 61 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 29 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 6% |
| Researcher | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 81 | 17% |
| Unknown | 133 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 134 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 6% |
| Engineering | 20 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 4% |
| Other | 75 | 16% |
| Unknown | 136 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,326,537
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#406
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,976
of 269,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 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 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 269,153 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.