↓ Skip to main content

Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1287-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi Fearns, Karen Graham, Gordon Johnston, Duncan Service

Abstract

Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public, and knowledge of what the public want from them is also increasing. The aim of this study was to user test a patient version of a SIGN clinical guideline that was designed based on preliminary work for the DECIDE project. SIGN is the leading national guideline producer in Scotland. People with a diagnosis of glaucoma and non-professional carers were recruited from across Scotland. User testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol method. Each session was conducted by one interviewer and one observer. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed, problems with the guideline were identified and resolved and key findings were themed using a user experience model. Thirteen user testing sessions with people with glaucoma and one with a carer were conducted. Key facilitators of desirability and usability identified include clear branding as a patient version and a clearly described purpose, audience and contents page. Other facilitators include a "friendly" tone which is achieved by the use of colour, quotes, icons, simple language and charts, and brief chunked text. The value and usefulness of the patient guideline was influenced by its ability to: inform the public, link information to actions, and empower people in their interaction with healthcare professionals. Participants were disappointed by the lack of information on treatment in the patient version, which was outside its scope. Information on the evidence based guideline production process and the involvement of appropriately skilled professionals was key to the credibility of the guideline. Lack of awareness of guidelines and guideline producing bodies, is a potentially serious threat to findability/accessibility. It is important for guideline producers to maximise the user experience of the public when they access patient versions of guidelines, particularly given the current low level of access and awareness. One size does not fit all and guideline producers need to strike a balance between keeping the patient version simple and providing sufficient information to facilitate shared decision making and empower the public. Guideline producers may find the results of this study useful in designing their own patient versions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Computer Science 9 8%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 35 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,704,119
of 23,988,888 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#592
of 8,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,141
of 404,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#10
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,988,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 404,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.