| Title |
Evaluating the value of a web-based natural medicine clinical decision tool at an academic medical center
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-11-279 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sue Boehmer, Kelly Karpa |
| Abstract |
Consumer use of herbal and natural products (H/NP) is increasing, yet physicians are often unprepared to provide guidance due to lack of educational training. This knowledge deficit may place consumers at risk of clinical complications. We wished to evaluate the impact that a natural medicine clinical decision tool has on faculty attitudes, practice experiences, and needs with respect to H/NP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 September 2012.
All research outputs
#13,357,126
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,589
of 7,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,402
of 139,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#48
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 139,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.