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 |
Electronic Health Record (EHR)-Based Community Health Measures: An Exploratory Assessment of Perceived Usefulness by Local Health Departments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5550-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen F. Comer, P. Joseph Gibson, Jian Zou, Marc Rosenman, Brian E. Dixon |
| Abstract |
Given the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems in health care organizations, public health agencies are interested in accessing EHR data to improve health assessment and surveillance. Yet there exist few examples in the U.S. of governmental health agencies using EHR data routinely to examine disease prevalence and other measures of community health. The objective of this study was to explore local health department (LHD) professionals' perceptions of the usefulness of EHR-based community health measures, and to examine these perceptions in the context of LHDs' current access and use of sub-county data, data aggregated at geographic levels smaller than county. To explore perceived usefulness, we conducted an online survey of LHD professionals in Indiana. One hundred and thirty-three (133) individuals from thirty-one (31) LHDs participated. The survey asked about usefulness of specific community health measures as well as current access to and uses of sub-county population health data. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine respondents' perceptions, access, and use. A one-way ANOVA (with pairwise comparisons) test was used to compare average scores by LHD size. Respondents overall indicated moderate agreement on which community health measures might be useful. Perceived usefulness of specific EHR-based community health measures varied by size of respondent's LHD [F(3, 88) = 3.56, p = 0.017]. Over 70% of survey respondents reported using community health data, but of those < 30% indicated they had access to sub-county level data. Respondents generally preferred familiar community health measures versus novel, EHR-based measures that are not in widespread use within health departments. Access to sub-county data is limited but strongly desired. Future research and development is needed as LHD staff gain access to EHR data and apply these data to support the core function of health assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 4 | 67% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Kenya | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Engineering | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,803,107
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,088
of 15,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,052
of 330,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#218
of 321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 330,076 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 321 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.