↓ Skip to main content

Using technology to engage hospitalised patients in their care: a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Using technology to engage hospitalised patients in their care: a realist review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2314-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shelley Roberts, Wendy Chaboyer, Ruben Gonzalez, Andrea Marshall

Abstract

Patient participation in health care is associated with improved outcomes for patients and hospitals. New technologies are creating vast potential for patients to participate in care at the bedside. Several studies have explored patient use, satisfaction and perceptions of health information technology (HIT) interventions in hospital. Understanding what works for whom, under what conditions, is important when considering interventions successfully engaging patients in care. This realist review aimed to determine key features of interventions using bedside technology to engage hospital patients in their care and analyse these in terms of context, mechanisms and outcomes. A realist review was chosen to explain how and why complex HIT interventions work or fail within certain contexts. The review was guided by Pawson's realist review methodology, involving: clarifying review scope; searching for evidence; data extraction and evidence appraisal; synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. Author experience and an initial literature scope provided insight and review questions and theories (propositions) around why interventions worked were developed and iteratively refined. A purposive search was conducted to find evidence to support, refute or identify further propositions, which formed an explanatory model. Each study was 'mined' for evidence to further develop the propositions and model. Interactive learning was the overarching theme of studies using technology to engage patients in their care. Several propositions underpinned this, which were labelled: information sharing; self-assessment and feedback; tailored education; user-centred design; and support in use of HIT. As studies were mostly feasibility or usability studies, they reported patient-centred outcomes including patient acceptability, satisfaction and actual use of HIT interventions. For each proposition, outcomes were proposed to come about by mechanisms including improved communication, shared decision-making, empowerment and self-efficacy; which acted as facilitators to patient participation in care. Overall, there was a stronger representation of health than IT disciplines in studies reviewed, with a lack of IT input in terms of theoretical underpinning, methodological design and reporting of outcomes. HIT interventions have great potential for engaging hospitalised patients in their care. However, stronger interdisciplinary collaboration between health and IT researchers is needed for effective design and evaluation of HIT interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 13%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Computer Science 13 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 49 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,564,969
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,591
of 6,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,301
of 288,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 288,288 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.