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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bogdan Grigore, Jaime Peters, Christopher Hyde, Ken Stein |
| Abstract |
Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs. An Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms. Fifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable. EXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 43% |
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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,478,452
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,325
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,074
of 315,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 315,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.