↓ Skip to main content

Comparing patient and healthcare worker experiences during a dengue outbreak in Singapore: understanding the patient journey and the introduction of a point-of-care test (POCT) toward better care…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Comparing patient and healthcare worker experiences during a dengue outbreak in Singapore: understanding the patient journey and the introduction of a point-of-care test (POCT) toward better care delivery
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2580-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qinghui Tan, Zoe J-L Hildon, Shweta Singh, Jin Jing, Tun Linn Thein, Richard Coker, Hubertus J. M. Vrijhoef, Yee Sin Leo

Abstract

In the aftermath of an upsurge in the number of dengue cases in 2013 and 2014, the SD BIOLINE Dengue Duo rapid diagnostic Point-of-Care Test (POCT) kit was introduced in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore in June 2013. It is known that the success of POCT usage is contingent on its implementation within the health system. We evaluated health services delivery and the Dengue Duo rapid diagnostic test kit application in Singapore from healthcare workers' perspectives and patient experiences of dengue at surge times. Focus group discussions were conducted with dengue patients, from before and after the POCT implementation period. In-depth interviews with semi-structured components with healthcare workers were carried out. A patient centred process mapping technique was used for evaluation, which mapped the patient's journey and was mirrored from the healthcare worker's perspective. Patients and healthcare workers confirmed a wide range of symptoms in adults, making it challenging to determine diagnosis. There were multiple routes to help seeking, and no 'typical patient journey', with patients either presenting directly to the hospital emergency department, or being referred there by a primary care provider. Patients groups diagnosed before and after POCT implementation expressed some differences between speed of diagnoses and attitudes of doctors, yet shared negative feelings about waiting times and a lack of communication and poor information delivery. However, the POCT did not in its current implementation do much to help waiting times. Healthcare workers expressed that public perceptions of dengue in recent years was a major factor in changing patient management, and that the POCT kit was helpful in improving the speed and accuracy of diagnoses. Health service delivery for dengue patients in Singapore was overall perceived to be of an acceptable clinical standard, which was enhanced by the introduction of the POCT. However, improvements can be focused on Adapting to outbreaks by reducing and rendering Waiting experiences more comfortable; Advancing education about symptom recognition, while also Recognising better communication strategies; and Expanding follow-up care options. This is presented as the Dengue AWARE model of care delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 46 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Engineering 4 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 48 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,562,247
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,648
of 7,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,332
of 315,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#131
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 315,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.