↓ Skip to main content

Managing chest pain patients in general practice: an interview-based study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
Managing chest pain patients in general practice: an interview-based study
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0771-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leen Biesemans, Lotte E. Cleef, Robert T. A. Willemsen, Beatrijs B. N. Hoorweg, Walter S. Renier, Frank Buntinx, Jan F. C. Glatz, Geert-Jan Dinant

Abstract

Assessment of chest pain in general practice is challenging. General practitioners (GPs) often feel uncertainty when dealing with chest pain. The role of new diagnostic tools is yet unclear. Therefore, we aimed to learn: (1) whether or not GPs experience a change in incidence and presentation of chest pain, (2) how GPs deal with uncertainty, and (3) which thoughts, demands and doubts concerning new diagnostic tools occur. Semi-structured, face to face interview based study, aiming at six main subjects: experienced changes in prevalence of chest pain, the management of chest pain patients, dealing with uncertainty, the GPs' approach in referring chest pain patients, GPs' attitude towards 'unnecessary' referrals, and the GPs' suggestions for improving the management of chest pain patients. 145 GPs in Belgium and the Netherlands were invited to participate, 27 (15 Flemish and 12 Dutch) GPs were interviewed. Data saturation was reached. The number of patients having an acute coronary syndrome among chest pain patients is decreasing, whereas the presentation of atypical complaints increases, together leading to more uncertainty. GPs rely on their own judgment above all, and desire new diagnostic tools only when these tools are of proven added value. The incidence of chest pain in general practice is not decreasing according to the GPs. However, the presentation of chest pain is changing. GPs feel relatively comfortable with referring a considerable number of chest pain patients without ACS, as over-referral is safe. Uncertainty is regarded as a substantial element of their profession. New diagnostic tools are awaited with cautiousness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 > Master 9 26%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,371,315
of 13,796,475 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#754
of 1,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,792
of 270,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,796,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 270,898 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 54% of its contemporaries.
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