↓ Skip to main content

Developing a patient-centered outcome measure for complementary and alternative medicine therapies I: defining content and format

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Developing a patient-centered outcome measure for complementary and alternative medicine therapies I: defining content and format
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-11-135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Mimi Nichter, Mark A Nichter, Kimberly L Kelly, Colette M Sims, Iris R Bell, Heide M Castañeda, Charles R Elder, Mary S Koithan, Elizabeth G Sutherland, Marja J Verhoef, Sarah L Warber, Stephen J Coons

Abstract

Patients receiving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies often report shifts in well-being that go beyond resolution of the original presenting symptoms. We undertook a research program to develop and evaluate a patient-centered outcome measure to assess the multidimensional impacts of CAM therapies, utilizing a novel mixed methods approach that relied upon techniques from the fields of anthropology and psychometrics. This tool would have broad applicability, both for CAM practitioners to measure shifts in patients' states following treatments, and conventional clinical trial researchers needing validated outcome measures. The US Food and Drug Administration has highlighted the importance of valid and reliable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of conventional medical products. Here we describe Phase I of our research program, the iterative process of content identification, item development and refinement, and response format selection. Cognitive interviews and psychometric evaluation are reported separately.

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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 164 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 14%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Psychology 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 49 29%
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 15 January 2012.
All research outputs
#15,241,259
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,030
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,869
of 243,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 243,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.