↓ Skip to main content

Communicating projected survival with treatments for chronic kidney disease: patient comprehension and perspectives on visual aids

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Communicating projected survival with treatments for chronic kidney disease: patient comprehension and perspectives on visual aids
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0536-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances Dowen, Karishma Sidhu, Elizabeth Broadbent, Helen Pilmore

Abstract

Mortality in end stage renal disease (ESRD) is higher than many malignancies. There is no data about the optimal way to present information about projected survival to patients with ESRD. In other areas, graphs have been shown to be more easily understood than narrative. We examined patient comprehension and perspectives on graphs in communicating projected survival in chronic kidney disease (CKD). One hundred seventy-seven patients with CKD were shown 4 different graphs presenting post transplantation survival data. Patients were asked to interpret a Kaplan Meier curve, pie chart, histogram and pictograph and answer a multi-choice question to determine understanding. We measured interpretation, usefulness and preference for the graphs. Most patients correctly interpreted the graphs. There was asignificant difference in the percentage of correct answers when comparing different graph types (p = 0.0439). The pictograph was correctly interpreted by 81% of participants, the histogram by 79%, pie chart by 77% and Kaplan Meier by 69%. Correct interpretation of the histogram was associated with educational level (p = 0.008) and inversely associated with age > 65 (p = 0.008). Of those who interpreted all four graphs correctly, there was an association with employment (p = 0.001) and New Zealand European ethnicity (p = 0.002). 87% of patients found the graphs useful. The pie chart was the most preferred graph (p 0.002). The readability of the graphs may have been improved with an alternative colour choice, especially in the setting of visual impairment. Visual aids, can be beneficial adjuncts to discussing survival in CKD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Psychology 5 13%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 41%
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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,612
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,063
of 320,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 320,397 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.