↓ Skip to main content

Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS health check: the CaVIAR project (b…

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Using patient and public involvement to improve the research design and funding application for a project aimed at fostering a more collaborative approach to the NHS health check: the CaVIAR project (better Care Via Improved Access to Records)
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0101-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian McMillan, Sarah Fox, Moira Lyons, Suzy Bourke, Manoj Mistry, Angela Ruddock, Benjamin Brown, Mei Yee Tang, Harm Van Marwijk

Abstract

Following an initial NHS Health Check appointment, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggest patients with QRISK2 scores of ≥10% should be offered advice on lifestyle and the risks and benefits of starting a statin. NICE recommend GPs should ascertain patients' pre-existing knowledge of cardiovascular disease risk, explore health beliefs, assess readiness to change, offer support, and engage family members. Condensing this complex discussion into a short consultation may result in inadequate patient understanding of the benefits of preventive measures. An alternative approach is needed. We propose a digital adjunct giving patients the opportunity to interact with their health check results from home before returning to see their GP. Before embarking on funding applications we sought the views of patients and members of the public. We consulted the Primary Care Research in Manchester Engagement Resource (PRIMER), an established departmental Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group (N = 9) and then ran a workshop with 19 members of the public, co-facilitated by 4 members of PRIMER. Following a brief presentation on the background to the project, attendees were split into four groups and introduced to Ketso, a toolkit for creative engagement. Ketso was used to encourage group discussions regarding the project idea. This PPI work improved the study design and proposed intervention. Discussions focussed on three themes: 1) positive feedback, 2) challenges and solutions, and 3) improvements/alternatives. Positive feedback included benefits to the NHS and patients. Challenges identified related to: 1) access, 2) data security, 3) engagement, and 4) negative consequences. Workshop members generated various solutions to these challenges and made additional suggestions for improvement relating to: 1) population (e.g. also including those with QRISK2 scores ≤10%), 2) duration (e.g. ongoing access to provide continued feedback), and 3) platform content (e.g. signposting to relevant services). This PPI work helped identify potential challenges and solutions not previously considered by the research team. Findings have informed the subsequent intervention design and strengthened the bid for funding. We aim to ensure ongoing patient and public involvement in all future stages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Psychology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,662,266
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#150
of 387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,589
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.