↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to implementing Decision Boxes in primary healthcare teams to facilitate shared decisionmaking: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Barriers and facilitators to implementing Decision Boxes in primary healthcare teams to facilitate shared decisionmaking: a study protocol
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-85
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anik Giguere, Michel Labrecque, Roland Grad, Michel Cauchon, Matthew Greenway, France Légaré, Pierre Pluye, Stephane Turcotte, Lisa Dolovich, R Brian Haynes

Abstract

Decision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 9 8%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 26 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,148,857
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,101
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,361
of 166,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#37
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 166,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.