↓ Skip to main content

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy Marrin, Fiona Wood, Jill Firth, Katharine Kinsey, Adrian Edwards, Kate E Brain, Robert G Newcombe, Alan Nye, Timothy Pickles, Kamila Hawthorne, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 183 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 16%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Professor 16 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 47 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Psychology 12 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 60 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,945,364
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,766
of 7,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,991
of 227,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#27
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 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 7,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 227,778 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.