↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2010
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Summary Blogs Twitter Dimensions citations
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
How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2010
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-5-10
Pubmed ID
20205815
Authors

Trudy van der Weijden, France Légaré, Antoine Boivin, Jako S Burgers, Haske van Veenendaal, Anne M Stiggelbout, Marjan Faber, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice?

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
United States 3 1%
Canada 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 257 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 20%
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 73 27%
Unknown 24 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 32%
Social Sciences 35 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 11%
Psychology 28 10%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 41 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,199,982
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#498
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,476
of 165,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 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 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 165,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.