↓ Skip to main content

The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0766-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikita Roman A. Jegan, Sarah Anna Kürwitz, Lena Kathrin Kramer, Monika Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, Charles Christian Adarkwah, Uwe Popert, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of three different risk displays used in a cardiovascular risk calculator on patients' motivation for shared decision-making (SDM). We compared a newly developed time-to-event (TTE) display with two established absolute risk displays (i.e. emoticons and bar charts). The accessibility, that is, how understandable, helpful, and trustworthy patients found each display, was also investigated. We analysed a sample of 353 patients recruited in general practices. After giving consent, patients were introduced to one of three fictional vignettes with low, medium or high cardiovascular risk. All three risk displays were shown in a randomized order. Patients were asked to rate each display with regard to motivation for SDM and accessibility. Two-factorial repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to compare the displays and investigate possible interactions with age. Regarding motivation for SDM, the TTE elicited the highest motivation, followed by the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001). The displays had no differential influence on the age groups (p = .445). While the TTE was generally rated more accessible than the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001), the emoticons were only superior to the bar chart in the younger subsample. However, this was only to a small effect (interaction between display and age, p < .01, η 2  = 0.018). Using fictional case vignettes, the novel TTE display was superior regarding motivation for SDM and accessibility when compared to established displays using emoticons and a bar chart. If future research can replicate these results in real-life consultations, the TTE display will be a valuable addition to current risk calculators and decision aids by improving patients' participation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 44%

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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,424,255
of 13,073,426 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#1,095
of 1,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,385
of 270,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,073,426 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 270,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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