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 |
Qualitative evaluation of a diabetes electronic decision support tool: views of users
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qing Wan, Meredith Makeham, Nicholas A Zwar, Susanna Petche |
| Abstract |
Quality care of type 2 diabetes is complex and requires systematic use of clinical data to monitor care processes and outcomes. An electronic decision support (EDS) tool for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care was developed by the Australian Pharmaceutical Alliance. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate the uptake and use of the EDS tool as well as to describe the impact of the EDS tool on the primary care consultation for diabetes from the perspectives of general practitioners and practice nurses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 25% |
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 09 July 2012.
All research outputs
#12,856,791
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#875
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,979
of 164,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#25
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 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 53% 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 164,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.