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 |
A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-016-0351-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meghan J. Elliott, Sharon E. Straus, Neesh Pannu, Sofia B. Ahmed, Andreas Laupacis, George C. Chong, David R. Hillier, Kate T. Huffman, Andrew C. Lei, Berlene V. Villanueva, Donna M. Young, Helen Tam-Tham, Maoliosa Donald, Erin Lillie, Braden J. Manns, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn |
| Abstract |
Few studies have evaluated stakeholder engagement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) research prioritization. In this two-arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare an in-person nominal group technique (NGT) approach with an online wiki-inspired alternative to determining the top 10 CKD research priorities, and to evaluate stakeholder engagement and satisfaction with each process. Eligible participants included adults ≥18 years with access to a computer and Internet, high health literacy, and from one of the following stakeholder groups: patients with CKD not on dialysis, their caregivers, health care providers who care for patients with CKD, or CKD-related health policymakers. Fifty-six participants were randomized to a wiki-inspired modified NGT that occurred over 3 weeks vs. a 1-day in-person NGT workshop, informed by James Lind Alliance methodology, to determine the top 10 CKD-related research priorities. The primary outcome was the pairwise agreement between the two groups' final top 10 ranked priorities, evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Secondary outcomes included participant engagement and satisfaction and wiki tool usability. Spearman's rho for correlation between the two lists was 0.139 (95 % confidence interval -0.543 to 0.703, p = 0.71), suggesting low correlation between the top 10 lists across the two groups. Both groups ranked the same item as the top research priority, with 5 of the top 10 priorities ranked by the wiki group within the top 10 for the in-person group. In comparison to the in-person group, participants from the wiki group were less likely to report: satisfaction with the format (73.7 vs.100 %, p = 0.011); ability to express their views (57.9 vs 96.0 %, p = 0.0003); and perception that they contributed meaningfully to the process (68.4 vs 84.0 %, p = 0.004). A CKD research prioritization approach using an online wiki-like tool identified low correlation in rankings compared with an in-person approach, with less satisfaction and perceptions of active engagement. Modifications to the wiki-inspired tool are required before it can be considered a potential alternative to an in-person workshop for engaging patients in determining research priorities. ( ISRCTN18248625 ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 37% |
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 15 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,386,997
of 25,035,235 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#944
of 2,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,968
of 349,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,035,235 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 349,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.