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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) for type 2 diabetes on knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-016-1262-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert. A. Bailey, Michael Pfeifer, Alicia C. Shillington, Qing Harshaw, Martha M. Funnell, Jeffrey VanWingen, Nanada Col |
| Abstract |
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification. This study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict. Of 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 [1] years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/-6] years, 45.3 % were male, and most (55.5 %) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0 % [22.3] vs 9.9 % [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs-3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (-22.2 [20.6] vs-7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001). The PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM. NCT02110979. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 2 | 29% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Morocco | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 214 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Researcher | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 18% |
| Unknown | 78 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 3% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 86 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,801,907
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,293
of 7,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,080
of 395,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 395,720 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.