↓ Skip to main content

Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case–control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case–control study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-65
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ted E Palen, David Price, Susan Shetterly, Kristin B Wallace

Abstract

Patients have typically received health care through face-to-face encounters. However, expansion of electronic communication and electronic health records (EHRs) provide alternative means for patient and physicians to interact. Electronic consultations may complement regular healthcare by providing "better, faster, cheaper" processes for diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions. Virtual consultation between physicians may provide a method of streamlining care, potentially saving patients the time and expense of added visits. The purpose of this study was to compare physician usage and patient satisfaction with virtual consultations (VCs) with traditional consultations (TCs) facilitated within an EHR.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 102 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 25%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Computer Science 7 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 19 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,292,520
of 21,334,388 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#62
of 1,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,514
of 142,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,334,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 142,337 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them