↓ Skip to main content

Building a patient-centered and interprofessional training program with patients, students and care professionals: study protocol of a participatory design and evaluation study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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
Building a patient-centered and interprofessional training program with patients, students and care professionals: study protocol of a participatory design and evaluation study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3200-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas W. Vijn, Hub Wollersheim, Marjan J. Faber, Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit, Jan A. M. Kremer

Abstract

A common approach to enhance patient-centered care is training care professionals. Additional training of patients has been shown to significantly improve patient-centeredness of care. In this participatory design and evaluation study, patient education and medical education will be combined by co-creating a patient-centered and interprofessional training program, wherein patients, students and care professionals learn together to improve patient-centeredness of care. In the design phase, scientific literature regarding interventions and effects of student-run patient education will be synthesized in a scoping review. In addition, focus group studies will be performed on the preferences of patients, students, care professionals and education professionals regarding the structure and content of the training program. Subsequently, an intervention plan of the training program will be constructed by combining these building blocks. In the evaluation phase, patients with a chronic disease, that is rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and hypertension, and patients with an oncologic condition, that is colonic cancer and breast cancer, will learn together with medical students, nursing students and care professionals in training program cycles of three months. Process and effect evaluation will be performed using the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) method to evaluate and optimize the training program in care practice and medical education. A modified control design will be used in PDSA-cycles to ensure that students who act as control will also benefit from participating in the program. Our participatory design and evaluation study provides an innovative approach in designing and evaluating an intervention by involving participants in all stages of the design and evaluation process. The approach is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the training program by assessing and meeting participants' needs and preferences. Moreover, by using fast PDSA cycles and a modified control design in evaluating the training program, the training program is expected to be efficiently and rapidly implemented into and adjusted to care practice and medical education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 55 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 17%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Psychology 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 53 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,980,329
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,947
of 8,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,785
of 337,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#129
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,421 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 52% 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 337,176 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.