↓ Skip to main content

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 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
Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine H Yu, Dawn Stacey, Joanna Sale, Susan Hall, David M Kaplan, Noah Ivers, Jeremy Rezmovitz, Fok-Han Leung, Baiju R Shah, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 209 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 21%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Other 47 22%
Unknown 43 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 17%
Psychology 18 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 56 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,439,080
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,246
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,090
of 305,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 305,705 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.