↓ Skip to main content

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 7,231)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1319-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi Fearns, Joanna Kelly, Margaret Callaghan, Karen Graham, Kirsty Loudon, Robin Harbour, Nancy Santesso, Emma McFarlane, Judith Thornton, Shaun Treweek

Abstract

Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions. Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis. We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs. Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harms, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decision making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 21 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#367,322
of 21,699,130 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 7,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,809
of 279,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,699,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 279,782 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them