↓ Skip to main content

Stages of use: consideration, initiation, utilization, and outcomes of an internet-mediated intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 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
Stages of use: consideration, initiation, utilization, and outcomes of an internet-mediated intervention
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-10-73
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa ML Chiu, Gunther Eysenbach

Abstract

Attrition, or nonuse of the intervention, is a significant problem in e-health. However, the reasons for this phenomenon are poorly understood. Building on Eysenbach's "Law of Attrition", this study aimed to explore the usage behavior of users of e-health services. We used two theoretical models, Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Utilization and Venkatesh's Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, to explore the factors associated with uptake and use of an internet-mediated intervention for caregivers taking care of a family member with dementia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 239 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 19%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 42 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 18%
Psychology 45 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 14%
Social Sciences 25 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 7%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 49 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,784,840
of 12,409,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#781
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,314
of 121,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,409,138 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 121,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.