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 |
How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-9-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nancy M Lorenzi, Angelina Kouroubali, Don E Detmer, Meryl Bloomrosen |
| Abstract |
Adoption of EHRs by U.S. ambulatory practices has been slow despite the perceived benefits of their use. Most evaluations of EHR implementations in the literature apply to large practice settings. While there are similarities relating to EHR implementation in large and small practice settings, the authors argue that scale is an important differentiator. Focusing on small ambulatory practices, this paper outlines the benefits and barriers to EHR use in this setting, and provides a "field guide" for these practices to facilitate successful EHR implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 40% |
| Chile | 1 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | <1% |
| Argentina | 2 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 426 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 110 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 15% |
| Researcher | 46 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 85 | 19% |
| Unknown | 73 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 114 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 93 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 39 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 12% |
| Unknown | 89 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,594,984
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#781
of 2,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,499
of 95,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 95,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.