↓ Skip to main content

Development of a decision aid to inform patients’ and families’ renal replacement therapy selection decisions

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
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
Development of a decision aid to inform patients’ and families’ renal replacement therapy selection decisions
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica M Ameling, Priscilla Auguste, Patti L Ephraim, LaPricia Lewis-Boyer, Nicole DePasquale, Raquel C Greer, Deidra C Crews, Neil R Powe, Hamid Rabb, L Ebony Boulware

Abstract

Few educational resources have been developed to inform patients' renal replacement therapy (RRT) selection decisions. Patients progressing toward end stage renal disease (ESRD) must decide among multiple treatment options with varying characteristics. Complex information about treatments must be adequately conveyed to patients with different educational backgrounds and informational needs. Decisions about treatment options also require family input, as families often participate in patients' treatment and support patients' decisions. We describe the development, design, and preliminary evaluation of an informational, evidence-based, and patient-and family-centered decision aid for patients with ESRD and varying levels of health literacy, health numeracy, and cognitive function.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Computer Science 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#10,493,010
of 19,033,718 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#796
of 1,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,088
of 272,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#78
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,033,718 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 272,090 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.