↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0797-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Kaiser, Sina Bartz, Edmund A. M. Neugebauer, Barbara Pietsch, Dawid Pieper

Abstract

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a core demand of policymakers, funding parties, and health care professionals in practice. Although the causal mechanism from increased IPC to improved patient outcomes seems to be intuitive, there is a lack of credible causal evidence concerning the effects not only on the objective but also on the subjective patient outcomes. The aim of the planned systematic review is to focus on the effect of IPC on patient-reported outcomes and experiences in inpatient care. A systematic literature review will be undertaken by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and EMBASE. Additional studies will be identified through forward and backward citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Data will be synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of the extracted data. If heterogeneity for some studies and outcomes is sufficiently low, a quantitative meta-analysis of effect sizes and standard errors will be applied. The systematic review will synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of IPC and how it is perceived by patients in inpatient care. As the patients' perspective becomes increasingly relevant in the context of quality improvement, the results can help decision-makers in policy- and health care institutions to understand and develop strategies to ensure a high quality of care. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017073900 ; date of registration in PROSPERO 07 August 2017.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 19%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Psychology 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,488,457
of 21,749,791 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#459
of 1,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,127
of 298,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,749,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 298,919 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 82% 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