↓ Skip to main content

Describing the factors that influence the process of making a shared-agenda in Japanese family physician consultations: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Asia Pacific Family Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Describing the factors that influence the process of making a shared-agenda in Japanese family physician consultations: a qualitative study
Published in
Asia Pacific Family Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12930-015-0023-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michiko Goto, Shoji Yokoya, Yousuke Takemura, Alberto Alexander Gayle, Tsukasa Tsuda

Abstract

Patients cannot always share all necessary relevant information with doctors during medical consultations. Regardless, in order to ensure the best quality consultation and care, it is imperative that a doctor clearly understands each patient's agenda. The purpose of this study was to analyze the process of developing a shared-agenda during family physician consultations in Japan. We interviewed 15 first time patients visiting the outpatient clinic of the Department of Family Medicine in the hospital chosen for the investigation, and the 8 family physicians who examined them. In total we observed 16 consultations. We analyzed both patients' and doctors' narratives using a modified grounded theory approach. For patients, we found four main factors that influenced the process of making a shared-agenda: past medical experiences, undisclosed but relevant information, relationship with the family physician, and the patient's own explanatory model. In addition, we found five factors that influenced the shared agenda making process for family physicians: understanding the patient's explanatory model, constructing the patient-doctor relationship, physical examination centered around the patient's explanatory model, discussion-styled explanation, and self-reflection on action. The findings suggest that patient satisfaction would be increased if family physicians are proactive in considering these factors with respect to both the patient's agenda, and their own.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Asia Pacific Family Medicine
#48
of 63 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,210
of 280,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Asia Pacific Family Medicine
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 63 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 280,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.