↓ Skip to main content

A randomized comparison of three data collection models for the measurement of parent experiences with diabetes outpatient care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
A randomized comparison of three data collection models for the measurement of parent experiences with diabetes outpatient care
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0557-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oyvind Bjertnaes, Hilde Hestad Iversen, Torild Skrivarhaug

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare three data collection methods for the measurement of parent experiences with hospital outpatient care for child and adolescent diabetes, based on a randomised national trial in Norway involving both pen-and-paper and electronic response options. The sample frame was patients registered in the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry. Parents of patients were randomised into the following groups (n = 2606): group A, who were posted questionnaires with only a pen-and-paper response option (n = 859); group B, who were posted questionnaires with both an electronic and a pen-and-paper response option (n = 886); and group C, who were posted questionnaires with only an electronic response option (n = 861). The three groups were compared on response rate, background variables about respondents, main study results and survey costs. Statistical analysis included logistic regression to test group differences in response probabilities and multilevel linear regression to test differences in parent experiences. The response rate was 61.8% for group A, 62.4% for group B and 41.6% for group C. The probability of answering was significantly higher for group A (OR = 2.3, p < 0.001) and B (OR = 2.3, p < 0.001) compared to group C. Respondent age, gender, education, living with the child and the degree of participation in consultations did not differ significantly between the three groups. Group differences in parent-reported experiences were small, varying from 1.0 (equipment and doctor contact) to 2.4 (outcome), on a scale from 0 to 100. Only one of 18 group differences was significant: the mixed group had significantly higher score than the electronic group on the organization scale (p < 0.05). The total cost of the electronic model was less than half the cost of the other models, and cost per response was 5.1 euros for the electronic model compared to 8.2 euros for group A and 7.6 euros for group B. The models with pen-and paper questionnaire included had more than 20% higher response rate than the model with an electronic-only response option. Background variables and parent-reported experiences were similar between the three groups, and the electronic model was the more cost-effective model.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,833,086
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#831
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,834
of 342,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 342,063 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.