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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
SCiPad: Effective Implementation of Telemedicine Using iPads with Individuals with Spinal Cord Injuries, a Case Series
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2017.00058 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kazuko Shem, Samantha J. Sechrist, Eleanor Loomis, Linda Isaac |
| Abstract |
Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) must often travel long distances to see a rehabilitation specialist. While telemedicine (TM) for pressure ulcer management has been used in this population, real-time video telecommunication using iPad has never been described. The objective of this study was to provide specialized care for persons with SCI through TM consultation expediently in order to address medical needs, manage secondary complications, and to improve quality of life (QoL) of individuals with SCI. Ten individuals with SCI participated in the TM program using iPads for 6 months as a feasibility study at a single-center, county hospital. The participants contacted the project staff for SCI-related conditions and were then connected to an SCI-trained health-care provider within 24 hours via FaceTime. Main outcome measures included health-care utilization; QoL and psychosocial measures collected at baseline and at 6 months: Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI), Life Satisfaction Index A (LSI-A), and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9); and a Program Satisfaction Survey. Ten patients (seven with tetraplegia, three with paraplegia; eight males and two females) with an average age of 34.4 (18-54) years were enrolled. The average baseline and 6-month follow-up scores were RNLI-70.1 ± 19.7 and 74.7 ± 21.8, respectively; LSI-A-25.4 ± 7.4 and 26.4 ± 8.2, respectively; and PHQ-9 were 6.8 ± 7.2 and 8.6 ± 6.1, respectively. TM encounters included topics such as pain, bladder and skin management, medication changes, and lab results. The Program Satisfaction Survey yielded positive results with 100% of program completers stating they would recommend the program and would like to continue having TM. This is the first known successful project using iPad to provide TM in the SCI population. This study discusses the implementation of such a TM program in a health system including limitations. It describes the clinical viability of TM using iPads in the SCI population for care beyond that of just pressure ulcer management. This project provides evidence for using a tablet device like an iPad as an effective and efficient patient management tool. |
X Demographics
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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 15% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 31% |
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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,645
of 5,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,619
of 314,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#40
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 314,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.