↓ Skip to main content

Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-014-0126-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan Feenstra, Margaret L Lawson, Denise Harrison, Laura Boland, Dawn Stacey

Abstract

Although children can benefit from being included in health decisions, little is known about effective interventions to support their involvement. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of decision coaching guided by the Ottawa Family Decision Guide with children and parents considering insulin delivery options for type 1 diabetes (insulin pump, multiple daily injections, or standard insulin injections). Pre-/post-test field testing design. Eligible participants were children (≤18 years) with type 1 diabetes and their parents attending an ambulatory diabetes clinic in a tertiary children's hospital. Parent-child dyads received decision coaching using the Ottawa Family Decision Guide that was pre-populated with evidence on insulin delivery options, benefits, and harms. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and data collection, and parent and child acceptability of the intervention. Of 16 families invited to participate, 12 agreed and 7 attended the decision coaching session. For the five missed families, two families were unable to attend the session or the decision coach was not available (N=3). Baseline and immediately post-coaching questionnaires were all completed and follow-up questionnaires two weeks post-coaching were missing from one parent-child dyad. Missing questionnaire items were 5 of 340 items for children (1.5%) and 1 of 429 for parents (0.2%). Decision coaching was rated as acceptable with higher scores from parents and their children who were in earlier stages of decision making. Decision coaching with children and their parents considering insulin options was feasible implement and evaluate in our diabetes clinic and was acceptable to participants. Recruitment was difficult due to scheduling restrictions related to the timing of the study. Coaching should target participants earlier in the decision making process and be scheduled at times that are convenient for families and coaches. Findings were used to inform a full-scale evaluation that is currently underway.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Professor 5 6%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Psychology 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 31 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,669,218
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#995
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,506
of 355,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 355,053 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.