↓ Skip to main content

Gender differences in the evaluation of care for patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study (ZODIAC-52)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Gender differences in the evaluation of care for patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study (ZODIAC-52)
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3086-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven H. Hendriks, Marco H. Blanker, Yvonne Roelofsen, Kornelis J. J. van Hateren, Klaas H. Groenier, Henk J. G. Bilo, Nanne Kleefstra

Abstract

Little is known about the association between patient-related factors and patients' evaluation of care. Aim was to investigate which patient-related factors are associated with patients' evaluation of care in men and women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care. This cross-sectional study included 1102 patients with T2D from 52 general practices. We measured patients' evaluation with the EUROPEP questionnaire and collected demographic, clinical and psychological data from questionnaires and health records. Stepwise linear regression analyses were used. The location where the questionnaire was completed (at home or at the general practice) was associated with all outcomes in men and women. Next to this, in men, explanatory factors for the care provider EUROPEP subscale were use of insulin, having some problems with T2D self-care and coffee consumption (R2 8.4%); coffee consumption was associated with the general practice subscale (R2 4.0%). In women, well-being, quality of life, following a general diet, and use of oral glucose-lowering drugs were associated with the care provider subscale (R2 16.8%). For the general practice subscale, well-being and age were explanatory factors (R2 9.4%). Only a few factors were found to be associated with patients' evaluation of care for men and women with T2D. Taken together, these factors explained only a small part of the variance of the EUROPEP scores. This explained variance was largely attributable to the location where the questionnaire was completed. We therefore advise to be aware of the possible consequences of filing-out questionnaires about patients' evaluation of care at the general practice. NCT01570140 (Clinicaltrials.gov). Registered 29 March 2012.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 34%

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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,105,730
of 12,923,846 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,053
of 4,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,257
of 270,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,923,846 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 270,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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