| Title |
Using tablet computers compared to interactive voice response to improve subject recruitment in osteoporosis pragmatic clinical trials: feasibility, satisfaction, and sample size
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s44551 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy S Mudano, Lisa C Gary, Ana L Oliveira, Mary Melton, Nicole C Wright, Jeffrey R Curtis, Elizabeth Delzell, T Michael Harrington, Meredith L Kilgore, Cora Elizabeth Lewis, Jasvinder A Singh, Amy H Warriner, Wilson D Pace, Kenneth G Saag |
| Abstract |
Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) provide large sample sizes and enhanced generalizability to assess therapeutic effectiveness, but efficient patient enrollment procedures are a challenge, especially for community physicians. Advances in technology may improve methods of patient recruitment and screening in PCTs. Our study looked at a tablet computer versus an integrated voice response system (IVRS) for patient recruitment and screening for an osteoporosis PCT in community physician offices. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#527
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,078
of 206,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 206,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.