↓ Skip to main content

How many patients are required to provide a high level of reliability in the Japanese version of the CARE Measure? A secondary analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
How many patients are required to provide a high level of reliability in the Japanese version of the CARE Measure? A secondary analysis
Published in
BMC Primary Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0826-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takaharu Matsuhisa, Noriyuki Takahashi, Muneyoshi Aomatsu, Kunihiko Takahashi, Jo Nishino, Nobutaro Ban, Stewart W. Mercer

Abstract

Empathy is widely regarded as being key to effective consultation in general practice. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a widely used and well-validated patient-rated measure in English. A Japanese version of the CARE Measure has undergone preliminary validation, but its ability to differentiate between individual doctors has not been established. The current study sought to investigate the reliability of the Japanese version of the CARE Measure in terms of discrimination between doctors. We conducted secondary analysis of a dataset involving 252 patients assessed by nine attending General Practitioners. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient was evaluated as an index of the reliability of the Japanese version of the CARE Measure for discriminating between doctors. With a criterion of intra-cluster correlation coefficient = 0.8, we conducted a decision (D) study using generalizability theory to determine the required number of patients for reliable CARE Measure estimates. The ability of the CARE Measure to discriminate between doctors increased with the number of patients assessed per doctor. A sample size of 38 or more patients provided an average intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.8. The Japanese CARE Measure appears to reliably discriminate between doctors with a feasible number of patient-ratings per doctor. Further studies involving larger numbers of doctors with a multicenter analysis are required to confirm the results of the current study, which was conducted at a single institution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Psychology 4 14%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 12 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,612
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,449
of 324,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#36
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 324,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.