↓ Skip to main content

Better management of multimorbidity: a critical look at the ‘Ariadne principles’

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Better management of multimorbidity: a critical look at the ‘Ariadne principles’
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0222-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Bower

Abstract

Primary care clinicians and researchers are growing increasingly aware of the prevalence of multimorbidity among long-term conditions, and the impact on patient experience, health, and utilisation of care. The correspondence paper by Muth et al. entitled 'The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations' outlines new thinking on a better way to manage the challenges of decision-making in multimorbidity. The paper highlights the importance of shared treatment goals as a fundamental basis for more effective management. Although a welcome contribution to the literature, the principles raise a number of challenges: the complexities of achieving effective patient-centred assessment and goal-setting; how best to encourage implementation of new practices; and the current state of the evidence around multimorbidity and its management.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/223.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Professor 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Social Sciences 11 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Psychology 5 9%
Design 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 7 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,737,667
of 26,369,011 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,227
of 4,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,342
of 371,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#22
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,369,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 371,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 66% of its contemporaries.