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 |
Addressing the gaps in diabetes care in first nations communities with the reorganizing the approach to diabetes through the application of registries (RADAR): the project protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2049-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dean T. Eurich, Sumit R. Majumdar, Lisa A. Wozniak, Allison Soprovich, Kari Meneen, Jeffrey A. Johnson, Salim Samanani |
| Abstract |
Type-2 diabetes rates in First Nations communities are 3-5 times higher than the general Canadian population, resulting in a high burden of disease, complications and comorbidity. Limited community nursing capacity, isolated environments and a lack of electronic health records (EHR)/registries lead to a reactive, disorganized approach to diabetes care for many First Nations people. The Reorganizing the Approach to Diabetes through the Application of Registries (RADAR) project was developed in alignments with federal calls for innovative, culturally relevant, community-specific programs for people with type-2 diabetes developed and delivered in partnership with target communities. RADAR applies both an integrated diabetes EHR/registry system (CARE platform) and centralized care coordinator (CC) service that will support local healthcare. The CC will work with local healthcare workers to support patient and community health needs (using the CARE platform) and build capacity in best practices for type-2 diabetes management. A modified stepped wedge controlled trial design will be used to evaluate the model. During the baseline phase, the CC will work with local healthcare workers to identify patients with type-2 diabetes and register them into the CARE platform, but not make any management recommendations. During the intervention phase, the CC will work with local healthcare workers to proactively manage patients with type-2 diabetes, including monitoring and recall of patients, relaying clinical information and coordinating care, facilitated through the shared use of the CARE platform. The RE-AIM framework will provide a comprehensive assessment of the model. The primary outcome measure will be a 10% improvement in any one of A1c, BP, or cholesterol over the baseline values. Secondary endpoints will address other diabetes care indicators including: the proportion of clinical measures completed in accordance with guidelines (e.g., foot and eye examination, receipt of vaccinations, smoking cessation counseling); the number of patients registered in CARE; and the proportion of patients linked to a health services provider. The cost-effectiveness of RADAR specific to these communities will be assessed. Concurrent qualitative assessments will provide contextual information, such as the quality/usability of the CARE platform and the impact/satisfaction with the model. RADAR combines innovative technology with personalized support to deliver organized diabetes care in remote First Nations communities in Alberta. By improving the ability of First Nations to systematically identify and track diabetes patients and share information seamlessly an overall improvement in the quality of clinical care of First Nations people living with type-2 diabetes on reserve is anticipated. ISRCTN study ID ISRCTN14359671 , retrospectively registered October 7, 2016. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 200 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 22% |
| Unknown | 50 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 16% |
| Psychology | 13 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 43 | 22% |
| Unknown | 58 | 29% |
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 10 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,521
of 7,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,522
of 420,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#135
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 420,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.