↓ Skip to main content

Clinical features of Parkinson’s disease patients are associated with therapeutic misconception and willingness to participate in clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Clinical features of Parkinson’s disease patients are associated with therapeutic misconception and willingness to participate in clinical trials
Published in
Trials, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2174-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmi Reijula, Anna-Maija Pietilä, Arja Halkoaho, Tuomas Selander, Kirsti Martikainen, Reetta Kälviäinen, Tapani Keränen

Abstract

Clinical trials (CTs) are the "gold standard" to ensure the development of new effective treatments in medicine. A study was conducted to assess knowledge of, and attitudes toward, clinical trials among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), along with factors that motivate them to participate. A 50-item questionnaire on the views of patients with PD about CTs was developed. It included statements that the respondents assessed on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample (n = 2000) of members of the patient organization the Finnish Parkinson Association. In all, 708 response forms were returned, of which 681 were accepted after exclusion (a 34% response rate). In general, attitudes of patients with PD toward CTs were positive. Older subjects and patients with lower education levels had inadequate knowledge of general issues related to CTs. Older age, low level of education, and lower number of PD medications were significant predictors for failure to understand the nature and purpose of clinical research. Additionally, significant positive correlation was found between education level and willingness to participate in CTs. Patients with PD have important gaps in their knowledge of methodological issues associated with CTs. The oldest subjects and those with a low level of education have the greatest information needs. Investigators should pay more attention to ensuring the comprehensibility of the information provided to potential CT participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 6 21%

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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,507,930
of 13,799,368 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,697
of 3,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,837
of 275,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,799,368 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 275,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them