↓ Skip to main content

Meaningful conversations in living with and treating chronic conditions: development of the ICAN discussion aid

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Meaningful conversations in living with and treating chronic conditions: development of the ICAN discussion aid
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1742-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kasey R. Boehmer, Ian G. Hargraves, Summer V. Allen, Marc R. Matthews, Christina Maher, Victor M. Montori

Abstract

The needs of the growing population of complex patients with multiple chronic conditions calls for a different approach to care. Clinical teams need to acknowledge, respect, and support the work that patients do and the capacity they mobilize to enact this work, and to adapt and self-manage. Tools that enable this approach to care are needed. Using user-centered design principles, we set out to create a discussion aid for use by patients, clinicians, and other health professionals during clinical encounters. We observed clinical encounters, visited patient homes, and dialogued with patient support groups. We then developed and tested prototypes in routine clinical practice. Then we refined a final prototype with extensive stakeholder feedback. From this process resulted the ICAN Discussion Aid, a tool completed by the patient and reviewed during the consultation in which patients classified domains that contribute to capacity as sources of burden or satisfaction; clinical demands were also classified as sources of help or burden. The clinical review facilitated by ICAN generates hypotheses regarding why some treatment plans may be problematic and may not be enacted in the patient's situation. We successfully created a discussion aid to elucidate and share insights about the capacity patients have to enact the treatment plan and hypotheses as to why this plan may or may not be enacted. Next steps involve the evaluation of the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters with a variety of health professionals and the impact of ICAN-informed treatment plans on patient-important outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Design 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,251,114
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,413
of 8,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,646
of 330,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#31
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 330,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.