↓ Skip to main content

The patient perspective: utilizing focus groups to inform care coordination for high-risk medicaid populations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
The patient perspective: utilizing focus groups to inform care coordination for high-risk medicaid populations
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2638-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Sheff, Elyse R. Park, Mary Neagle, Nicolas M. Oreskovic

Abstract

Care coordination programs for high-risk, high-cost patients are a critical component of population health management. These programs aim to improve outcomes and reduce costs and have proliferated over the last decade. Some programs, originally designed for Medicare patients, are now transitioning to also serve Medicaid populations. However, there are still gaps in the understanding of what barriers to care Medicaid patients experience, and what supports will be most effective for providing them care coordination. We conducted two focus groups (n = 13) and thematic analyses to assess the outcomes drivers and programmatic preferences of Medicaid patients enrolled in a high-risk care coordination program at a major academic medical center in Boston, MA. Two focus groups identified areas where care coordination efforts were having a positive impact, as well as areas of unmet needs among the Medicaid population. Six themes emerged from the focus groups that clustered in three groupings: In the first group (1) enrollment in an existing medical care coordination programs, and (2) provider communication largely presented as positive accounts of assistance, and good relationships with providers, though participants also pointed to areas where these efforts fell short. In the second group (3) trauma histories, (4) mental health challenges, and (5) executive function difficulties all presented challenges faced by high-risk Medicaid patients that would likely require redress through additional programmatic supports. Finally, in the third group, (6) peer-to-peer support tendencies among patients suggested an untapped resource for care coordination programs. Programs aimed at high-risk Medicaid patients will want to consider programmatic adjustments to attend to patient needs in five areas: (1) provider connection/care coordination, (2) trauma, (3) mental health, (4) executive function/paperwork and coaching support, and (5) peer-to-peer support.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Psychology 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 35%

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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#9,269,291
of 11,586,569 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,764
of 2,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,064
of 266,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#51
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,586,569 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 2,546 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 266,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.