↓ Skip to main content

Measuring interoperable EHR adoption and maturity: a Canadian example

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Measuring interoperable EHR adoption and maturity: a Canadian example
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0247-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bobby Gheorghiu, Simon Hagens

Abstract

An interoperable electronic health record is a secure consolidated record of an individual's health history and care, designed to facilitate authorized information sharing across the care continuum.  Each Canadian province and territory has implemented such a system and for all, measuring adoption is essential to understanding progress and optimizing use in order to realize intended benefits. About 250,000 health professionals-approximately half of Canada's anticipated potential physician, nurse, pharmacist, and administrative users-indicated that they electronically access data, such as those found in provincial/territorial lab or drug information systems, in 2015.  Trends suggest further growth as maturity of use increases. There is strong interest in health information exchange through the iEHR in Canada, and continued growth in adoption is expected. Central to managing the evolution of digital health is access to robust data about who is using solutions, how they are used, where and when.  Stakeholders such as government, program leads, and health system administrators must critically assess progress and achievement of benefits, to inform future strategic and operational decisions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 25%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Computer Science 13 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 47 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,693,072
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#481
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,262
of 399,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 399,867 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.