↓ Skip to main content

A method for co-creation of an evidence-based patient workbook to address alcohol use when quitting smoking in primary care: a case study

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
A method for co-creation of an evidence-based patient workbook to address alcohol use when quitting smoking in primary care: a case study
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0086-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadia Minian, Aliya Noormohamed, Laurie Zawertailo, Dolly Baliunas, Norman Giesbrecht, Bernard Le Foll, Jürgen Rehm, Andriy Samokhvalov, Peter L. Selby

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe a patient engagement event designed to create an educational workbook with smokers who drink alcohol at harmful levels. The goal was to create a workbook that combined scientific evidence with patients' values, preferences, and needs. Fourteen adult smokers who drink alcohol were invited to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to take part in a four-hour event to help design the workbook with the CAMH research team. Participants provided their opinions and ideas to create an outline for the workbook, including activities, images, and titles. The workbook - calledSelf-Awareness- is currently being offered in a smoking cessation program in 221 primary care clinics across Ontario to help smokers quit or reduce their harmful alcohol use. The patient engagement event was a useful way to co-create educational materials that incorporate both scientific research and patient needs. Background Evidence-based medicine is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. There are few methodologies on how to design evidence-based programs and resources to include patient values. The latter is an important aspect of patient-centered care, and is essential for patients to trust the recommendations and empower them as consumers to make informed choices. This manuscript describes a participatory research approach to design patient-facing educational materials that incorporate both evidence-based and community-sensitive principles. These materials are intended to support smokers to reduce or stop harmful alcohol consumption.MethodsAdult smokers who report consuming alcohol were invited to a co-creation meeting at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health's Nicotine Dependence Service to guide the adaptation of evidence-based materials. The four-hour event consisted of individual reflections, group discussions, and consensus-building interactions. Detailed notes were taken and then incorporated into the material.ResultsFourteen individuals participated in the event. The end product was a descriptive outline of an educational resource - entitledSelf-Awareness- incorporating material from evidence-based workbooks and patient-driven features. Participants collaboratively selected the resource's content, structure, and titles.ConclusionsThis model describes a participatory research method that emphasizes the value of the patient perspective; preliminary evidence finds this adaptation approach can increase the adoption of resources. The process described in this article could be replicated in other settings to co-create evidence-based resources, interventions, and programs that reflect the needs of the community.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03108144. Retrospectively registered 11 April 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,782,616
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#292
of 388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,455
of 437,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 437,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.