↓ Skip to main content

In search of quality indicators for Down syndrome healthcare: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
In search of quality indicators for Down syndrome healthcare: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2228-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francine A. van den Driessen Mareeuw, Mirjam I. Hollegien, Antonia M. W. Coppus, Diana M. J. Delnoij, Esther de Vries

Abstract

The medical care chain around Down syndrome (DS) is complex, with many multidisciplinary challenges. The current quality of care is unknown. Outcome-oriented quality indicators have the potential to improve medical practice and evaluate whether innovations are successful. This is particularly interesting for the evolving care for people with DS and intellectual disabilities (ID). The aim of this study was to identify existing indicators for medical DS care, by reviewing the literature. We systematically searched six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar) for studies concerning the development and implementation of quality indicators for DS and/or ID care, published until February 1(st) 2015. The scoping review method was used, including systematic data extraction and stakeholder consultation. We identified 13 studies concerning quality indicators for ID care that obtained data originating from questionnaires (patient/family/staff), medical files and/or national databases. We did not find any indicator sets specifically for DS care. Consulted stakeholders did not come up with additional indicator sets. Existing indicators for ID care predominantly focus on support services. Indicators in care for people with ID targeting medical care are scarce. Of the 70 indicators within the 13 indicator sets, 10% are structure indicators, 34% process, 32% outcome and 24% mixed. Ten of the 13 sets include indicators on the WHO quality dimensions 'patient-centeredness', 'effectiveness' and 'efficiency' of care. 'Accessibility' is covered by nine sets, 'equitability' by six, and 'safety' by four. Most studies developed indicators in a multidisciplinary manner in a joint effort with all relevant stakeholders; some used focus groups to include people with ID. To our knowledge, this is the first review that searched for studies on quality indicators in DS care. Hence, the study contributes to existing knowledge on DS care as well as on measuring quality of care. Future research should address the development of a compact set of quality indicators for the DS care chain as a whole. Indicators should preferably be patient-centred and outcome-oriented, including user perspectives, while developed in a multidisciplinary way to achieve successful implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 17%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Psychology 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,103,884
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#826
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,976
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 310,294 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.