↓ Skip to main content

Consulting patients in setting priorities in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) research: findings from a national on-line survey

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2015
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Consulting patients in setting priorities in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) research: findings from a national on-line survey
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40900-015-0011-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Childs, Lisa Robinson, Sonya Chowdhury, Clare Ogden, Julia L. Newton

Abstract

Myalgic encephalitis (M.E.) is a common condition, the cause of which is not known and there are no treatments available. In this study the national patient support group Action for M.E. sought the opinions of their members via an online survey as to what they felt should be future priorities for M.E. Respondents were asked what they considered first, second and third research priorities to be from a list of 13 pre-defined options. Individuals were invited to provide additional free text comments about Action for M.E.'s research priorities in general. Of the 1144 respondents: 822 had M.E.; 94 were a supporting a member of Action for M.E. ; 66 were carers for someone with M.E.; 26 were professionals with an interest in M.E.; 136 had a family member or colleague with M.E. Individuals selected more than one category as applicable. The top five research priorities identified were: disease processes to achieve a better understanding of the causes of M.E.; more effective treatments; faster and more accurate diagnosis; clinical course of M.E.; outcomes and natural history; and severely affected patients. Least popular priorities were: sleep; economic research towards identifying the cost of ME; and psychological aspects. Much of the free text comments emphasised the importance of funding biomedical research into disease processes to achieve a better understanding of the causes of M.E. Three themes were identified in relation to this topic: accurate diagnosis and awareness; risk factors and causes; drug development and curative therapies. In conclusion; individuals affected by M.E. have clear views regarding priorities for research investment. These have informed Action for M.E.'s ongoing research strategy and ultimately will inform national and international research priorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 17%
Librarian 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Psychology 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#1,620,340
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#144
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,063
of 275,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 275,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.