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 |
Trust, confidentiality, and the acceptability of sharing HIV-related patient data: lessons learned from a mixed methods study about Health Information Exchanges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andre Maiorana, Wayne T Steward, Kimberly A Koester, Charles Pearson, Starley B Shade, Deepalika Chakravarty, Janet J Myers |
| Abstract |
Concerns about the confidentiality of personal health information have been identified as a potential obstacle to implementation of Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). Considering the stigma and confidentiality issues historically associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, we examine how trust-in technology, processes, and people-influenced the acceptability of data sharing among stakeholders prior to implementation of six HIEs intended to improve HIV care in parts of the United States. Our analyses identify the kinds of concerns expressed by stakeholders about electronic data sharing and focus on the factors that ultimately facilitated acceptability of the new exchanges. |
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 | 3 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 10% |
| Psychology | 9 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,904,145
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#428
of 1,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,932
of 161,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#10
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 161,911 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.