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 |
Survey of patient and public perceptions of electronic health records for healthcare, policy and research: Study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-40 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Serena Luchenski, Anjali Balasanthiran, Cicely Marston, Kaori Sasaki, Azeem Majeed, Derek Bell, Julie E Reed |
| Abstract |
Immediate access to patients' complete health records via electronic databases could improve healthcare and facilitate health research. However, the possible benefits of a national electronic health records (EHR) system must be balanced against public concerns about data security and personal privacy. Successful development of EHR requires better understanding of the views of the public and those most affected by EHR: users of the National Health Service. This study aims to explore the correlation between personal healthcare experience (including number of healthcare contacts and number and type of longer term conditions) and views relating to development of EHR for healthcare, health services planning and policy and health research. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 4% |
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 18% |
| Researcher | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 31% |
| Computer Science | 23 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 21% |
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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,468,398
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#467
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,941
of 164,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 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 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 164,339 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.