↓ Skip to main content

A mixed methods study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool App in paediatric diabetes care in preparation for a longitudinal cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
A mixed methods study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool App in paediatric diabetes care in preparation for a longitudinal cohort study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0164-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Cooper, Gillian A. Lancaster, Phillip Gichuru, Matthew Peak, Cooper, Helen, Lancaster, Gillian A., Gichuru, Phillip, Peak, Matthew

Abstract

An evaluation study was carried out to determine the feasibility of integrating the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (ADNAT) App into UK paediatric diabetes care, to ascertain best practice standards and to determine methodological recommendations for a future cohort study. A non-randomised, cohort, mixed methods study design was used to ensure equality of access to ADNAT for all participants at three sites in the North West of England. Following UK Medical Research Council guidance, the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness (potential and perceived), adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework was used to guide study objectives and feasibility outcomes. Patients who completed ADNAT (completers) were compared with those who failed to complete (non-completers). Patients' glycaemic control (HbA1c) was accessed from their clinical data at baseline and at 6 months, alongside their ADNAT scores which were correlated with changes in HbA1c levels. The diabetes teams (respondents) completed a web-based survey and attended focus group interviews. Eighty-nine patients were recruited. Withdrawal rates were low at 4.5% (n = 4). Forty-four patients (49.4%) completed ADNAT, leaving 45 (50.6%) non-completers. There were large baseline differences in HbA1c and variable rates of change at 6 months. After adjusting for baseline HbA1C and site in an analysis of covariance, completers had a lower post-ADNAT mean HbA1C level than non-completers at 6 months (-5.42 mmol/mol, 95% CI -11.48, 0.64). Patients' glycaemic control (HbA1c) at 6 months correlated reasonably well with their ADNAT scores (Spearman's rho = 0.46). Survey and focus group data showed that ADNAT was judged to be an effective clinical tool by the diabetes teams. Value to patients was perceived by the teams to be linked to parental support, age and previous diabetes education. The combined data triangulated. It served to capture different dimensions which were used to define changes to achieve practice standards and methodological recommendations. The combined data showed that ADNAT has the potential to be a clinically viable tool. It has demonstrated the need for a randomised design that is tailored for a 'hard to reach' adolescent population. A cluster randomised controlled trial that involves sequential but random rollout of ADNAT over multiple time periods may be the most appropriate and is currently being considered for the larger study. NIHR Children's Clinical Research Network, UKCRN ID 6633.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Unspecified 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Unspecified 8 15%
Psychology 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,969,562
of 11,655,615 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#191
of 271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,816
of 264,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,655,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 264,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.