↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the relationship between patients’ information preference style and knowledge acquisition process in a computerized patient decision aid randomized controlled trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Exploring the relationship between patients’ information preference style and knowledge acquisition process in a computerized patient decision aid randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0168-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna M. Sawka, Sharon Straus, Gary Rodin, Richard W. Tsang, James D. Brierley, Lorne Rotstein, Phillip Segal, Amiram Gafni, Shereen Ezzat, David P. Goldstein

Abstract

We have shown in a randomized controlled trial that a computerized patient decision aid (P-DA) improves medical knowledge and reduces decisional conflict, in early stage papillary thyroid cancer patients considering adjuvant radioactive iodine treatment. Our objectives were to examine the relationship between participants' baseline information preference style and the following: 1) quantity of detailed information obtained within the P-DA, and 2) medical knowledge. We randomized participants to exposure to a one-time viewing of a computerized P-DA (with usual care) or usual care alone. In pre-planned secondary analyses, we examined the relationship between information preference style (Miller Behavioural Style Scale, including respective monitoring [information seeking preference] and blunting [information avoidance preference] subscale scores) and the following: 1) the quantity of detailed information obtained from the P-DA (number of supplemental information clicks), and 2) medical knowledge. Spearman correlation values were calculated to quantify relationships, in the entire study population and respective study arms. In the 37 P-DA users, high monitoring information preference was moderately positively correlated with higher frequency of detailed information acquisition in the P-DA (r = 0.414, p = 0.011). The monitoring subscale score weakly correlated with increased medical knowledge in the entire study population (r = 0.268, p = 0.021, N = 74), but not in the respective study arms. There were no significant associations with the blunting subscale score. Individual variability in information preferences may affect the process of information acquisition from computerized P-DA's. More research is needed to understand how individual information preferences may impact medical knowledge acquisition and decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Other 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Psychology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 17 29%
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 2016.
All research outputs
#6,286,794
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#587
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,222
of 264,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 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 1,988 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 69% 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 264,785 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.