↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in sexual health nurses’ consultations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Assessing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in sexual health nurses’ consultations
Published in
BMC Nursing, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-017-0265-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemieke P. Bikker, Bridie Fitzpatrick, Douglas Murphy, Lorraine Forster, Stewart W. Mercer

Abstract

Increasingly healthcare policies emphasise the importance of person-centred, empathic care. Consequently, healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate the 'human' aspects of care in training and in practice. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a patient-rated measure of the interpersonal skills of healthcare practitioners. It has been widely validated for use by healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care. This paper reports on the validity and reliability of the CARE Measure with sexual health nurses. Patient questionnaires were collected for 943 consultations with 20 sexual health nurses. Participating patients self-completed the questionnaire immediately after the encounter with the nurse. The questionnaire included the ten item CARE Measure, the Patient Enablement Index, and overall satisfaction instruments. Construct validity was assessed through Spearman's correlation and principal component analysis. Internal consistence was assessed through Cronbach's alpha and the inter-rater reliability through Generalisability Theory. Data were collected in 2013 in Scotland. Female patients completed 68% of the questionnaires. The mean patient age was 28.8 years (standard deviation 9.8 years). Two of the 20 participating nurses withdrew from the study. Most patients (71.7%) regarded the CARE Measure items as very important to their consultation and the number of 'not applicable' and missing responses' were low (2.6% and 0.1% respectively). The participating nurses had high CARE Measure scores; out of a maximum possible score of 50, the overall mean CARE measure score was 47.8 (standard deviation 4.4). The scores were moderately correlated with patient enablement (rho = 0.232, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (rho = 0.377, p = 0.001. Cronbach's alpha showed the measure's high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.95), but the inter-rater reliability could not be calculated due to the high achieved CARE Measure scores that varied little between nurses. Within this clinical context the CARE Measure has high perceived relevance and face validity. The findings support construct validity and some evidence of reliability. The high CARE Measure scores may have been due to sample bias. A future study which ensures a representative sample of patients on a larger group of nurses is required to determine whether the measure can discriminate between nurses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 21%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 23%
Psychology 6 9%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,531,823
of 24,552,012 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#243
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,283
of 448,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,552,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 448,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.