↓ Skip to main content

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0782-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Elf, Peter Fröst, Göran Lindahl, Helle Wijk

Abstract

Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments. This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users' perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 20%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 15%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Engineering 11 7%
Design 9 6%
Other 35 23%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,954,908
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,309
of 8,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,568
of 269,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#31
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 269,840 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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.