↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the quality of Patients’ goals and action plans: development and validation of a novel tool

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Measuring the quality of Patients’ goals and action plans: development and validation of a novel tool
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cayla R Teal, Paul Haidet, Ajay S Balasubramanyam, Elisa Rodriguez, Aanand D Naik

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop and test reliability, validity, and utility of the Goal-Setting Evaluation Tool for Diabetes (GET-D). The effectiveness of diabetes self-management is predicated on goal-setting and action planning strategies. Evaluation of self-management interventions is hampered by the absence of tools to assess quality of goals and action plans. To address this gap, we developed the GET-D, a criteria-based, observer rating scale that measures the quality of patients' diabetes goals and action plans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 24%

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 05 August 2013.
All research outputs
#2,535,550
of 10,502,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#354
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,972
of 307,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#28
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,502,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 307,061 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 52% of its contemporaries.