↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol of “CHAPS”: a randomized controlled trial protocol of Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson’s Disease to improve the quality of care for individuals with…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, December 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 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
Study protocol of “CHAPS”: a randomized controlled trial protocol of Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson’s Disease to improve the quality of care for individuals with Parkinson’s disease
Published in
BMC Neurology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0506-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Connor, Eric Cheng, Hilary C. Siebens, Martin L. Lee, Brian S. Mittman, David A. Ganz, Barbara Vickrey

Abstract

Parkinson's disease, the second most common neurodegenerative disease, is diagnostically defined by motor impairments, but also includes often under-recognized impairments in cognition, mood, sleep, and the autonomic nervous system. These problems can severely affect individuals' quality of life. In our prior research, we have developed indicators to measure the quality of care delivered to patients with Parkinson's disease, and we identified gaps in delivering evidence-based treatments for this population. Effective strategies to close these gaps are needed to improve patient quality of life. Building on prior research we developed a multi-faceted proactive implementation program called Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson's Disease (CHAPS). To be eligible, patients had to have at least two visits with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (ICD-9 code: 332.0) at one of five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in the southwestern United States from 2010 to 2014. The program consists of telephone assessments, evidence-based protocols, and tools to enhance patient self-management, care planning, and coordination of care across providers, including an electronic database to support and track coordination of care. Our mixed-methods study employs a randomized, controlled trial design to test whether the CHAPS intervention improves performance in 38 quality measures among an analytic sample of 346 patients. The 38 quality measures are categorized into overarching areas of communication, education, and continuity; regulatory reporting; diagnosis; periodic assessment; medication use; management of motor and non-motor symptoms; use of non-pharmacological approaches and therapies; palliative care; and health maintenance. Secondary outcomes are patient health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, and perceptions of care quality. We are also evaluating the extent of the CHAPS Program implementation and measuring program costs and impacts on health services utilization, in order to perform a analysis of the CHAPS program from the perspective of the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Outcomes are assessed by interviewer-administered surveys collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months, and by medical record chart abstractions. Analyses will be intention-to-treat. The CHAPS Program is poised for dissemination within the VA National Parkinson's Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Center Consortium if demonstrated efficacious. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01532986 ; registered on January 13, 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 246 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 10%
Researcher 23 9%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 78 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 18%
Psychology 29 12%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 83 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,881,276
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#315
of 2,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,724
of 390,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 390,233 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.